Income Tax Compels Dependency Upon National Currency

In 1913 there was no income tax.  There was no need for the government to know who you were as an individual.  The county where you were born had your birth record.  If you still lived in that county, as most people of that time likely did, then they also had your voter registration and you likely were responsible to pay a poll tax to vote, although you also probably bartered your time, skill, or knowledge in lieu of actual currency to pay it.

Back in the early 1900s poll taxes were used to encourage community service.  People with tractors would keep the dirt roads around their property graded so that their neighbors could pass through to their own property; or people skilled with maintaining plants and trees would maintain the court house grounds or other public spaces from time to time as needed.  People in the community didn't need a lot of cash to conduct their business because people simply bartered the things that they had.  Saturday night you went into town with the butter and eggs that you had made or collected over the past week and in exchange you left town with the flour, sugar and other dry or canned goods that you needed for the next week.  Stores offered you credit on their own terms, often knowing that when your crops came in they would be paid in full.  They knew who you were, they depended on your business, you depended on their service.  People didn't need money as much as they needed each other.

And then we decided to tax income.  The sixteenth amendment doesn't state that the Federal Government gets to tax people at different rates.  If left entirely in the context of the rest of the Constitution, it should imply that all people earning incomes should pay the same rate, no exceptions, no exemptions, no deductions, etc.  But it was immediately applied only to people earning more than $xx.000 a year.  It was implemented with the promise that it would never rise above 1% but it was raised Y times over the next Z years until it crossed into double digits by 19aa.

And of course, it requires that the Federal Government gets access to your private documents without a warrant.  Actually, the 16th amendment does not state that the 4th amendment is null and void.  But logically, it implies it.  Beyond this infringement of the rights of individuals against search and seizure without a warrant the 5th amendment expectation that you are innocent until proven guilty gets spun on its head.  You must prove your innocence to the IRS if they choose to audit you.

Such concentrated power in the hands of government employees provides a fantastic opportunity to curry favor by attacking your administration's enemies.  Only when the Congress (the body of oversight) is run by an opposing party is there any risk of reprimand for supporting your team through the power of simply threatening an audit.

For these reasons the very idea of a Federal income tax needs to be repealed.  If the Federal Government were reduced to it's primary three goals (national defense, equal justice and fair trade) then there truly is no need for the money that comes in through the income tax which is only bb% of the money that comes into the Federal budget (at least the last one that we had in 2008).  The Federal Government already makes enough money under other forms of taxation.  Freeing the people from having to convert inventory, skills, service, equipment and raw materials into dollar-based figures would free people from even depending on Federal currency to move their personal economies into robust and community-building resources.  Leaving the wealth of the community within the community so that it can be freely distributed within the community and serve all of the people is the fastest way to eliminate the need for Federal subsistence programs.

Continuing Resolutions are Contra-Constitutional

The Constitution requires that each Congress passes a budget and charges the House of Representative with initiating this process.  This clearly keeps the representatives of the people as the primary economic overseers of Federal spending.

The decision not to follow this requirement of the Constitution and to instead pass "Continuing Resolutions" in effect circumvents this essential function of the House.  Federal Budgets have a two-year maximum (specifically for military purposes) and generally provide only a one-year funding of any given aspect of the Federal Government.  Taken to its strictest interpretation there are in fact no on-going Federal programs or benefits because without specific funding for any of them every program will cease and terminate within the end of its budget cycle - typically October 1st to September 30th.

A Continuing Resolution bypasses the fiscal responsibility of Congress to vote to continue every distinct program that it chooses to.  It prevents the natural pressure toward that responsibility - termination of the funded program.  If the program is of true value and meets of the test of providing for the General Welfare (meaning all of the citizens, not individuals, minorities or even majorities) then there will be public pressure to continue to fund the program.  If any program does not meet this requirement then it no longer is serving the public's interest and should immediately be discontinued at the Federal level (if it serves the needs of any States or of private citizens, then of course those governments or organizations could take on responsibility of funding and providing those services).

The proper response to not having directly funded any aspect of Federal Government is for that program to cease and terminate with no expectation of the affected employees returning to the same work.

No Need for a Third Party

George Washington warned us about the problems with political parties.  In essence they work to promote the power of the party rather than serving the public.

So do we need to establish a third party when the current parties consistently ignore their constituents?  Let's review that last sentence, because the problem lies in our expectations that member of a party perceive the people who elected them as their constituents.  I contend that party members serve the party - that the party is the constituent, so in reality they must ignore the people who elected them when their wishes are in conflict with the party's goals.

So there is actually danger in seeking to establish another party as the solution to this process.  A new party will simply create a focus point for political power brokers to target for takeover.  It can only provide a temporary (perhaps only one or two election cycles) solution.

So what are we the people supposed to do to exercise our political responsibility of guiding and directing the Federal Government through our careful selection of elected officials?  We already have the answers among us - public organizations which fund and support political candidates.  Working with and fundraising for these organizations are the most effective way of bringing Constitutional candidates to the foreground.

But don't we still have to do this within the political party framework?  At the moment, yes we do.  But we are completely able to do so.  This requires registration within political parties (and provides the opportunity to take on party leadership roles to encourage more Constitutional goals).  Individual states govern the process of getting candidate names on their ballots.  For the most part the major political parties have automatic access but some states offer alternatives through petition processes.  Again, working with a public organization that promotes Constitutional government can provide the basis for these petitions; but it is actually easier to run a Constitutional candidate within the existing political parties - as long as we are consistently careful to support only those Constitutional candidates rather than supporting the party.

Control the Language and Guide the Debate

Liberty Lexicon

Fossil Fuels - Natural Earth Fuels

Redistribution of Wealth - Confiscation of Wealth

Capitalism - Free Distribution of Wealth

Never Reelect Anyone

Term Limits at the Federal Level

Let's start with the first question:  Is there anything about Federal Elective Office which requires re-election of elected officials?  The US Constitution does not mandate re-election and does not particularly expect or anticipate re-election; but likewise did not prohibit re-election until the passage of the 22nd Amendment.  Tradition has identified first-term representatives as Freshmen but there is nothing Constitutionally preventing a Freshman representative from performing any function that otherwise are reserved for Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors or longer-term representatives.  The same is true for the tradition of referring to Junior and Senior Senators, although in this case - with overlapping six-year terms that start at two-year intervals - there always will be a more experienced senator and a lesser experienced senator from every state.  In this way the Constitution sets forth the longer term expectations that Senators carry on a more consistent approach with nor more than one third of the group being replaced in any election cycle.

I propose that the Senate model, of overlapping six-year terms, is in fact all of the continuity required for effective adherence to the Constitution.  In other words, there is no essential need for any Federal elected official to serve more than a single term.

Four Squares of Power

Personal Power (individualistic power) and Coercive Power (collectivistic power) are near opposites.  Personal power does not become coercive power until it is used to make decisions and take actions which affect other people.  If those other people willingly comply or contribute then the result is collective application of Personal Power.  If the other people are not willing to comply but the power is asserted regardless then the individual(s) asserting their power are collectively overiding individual(s)' power.

Confused?  Yeah.  Here's a chart to help clear things up.

Freedom requires the personal power to enforce your

If the GOAL is FREEDOM then we must prevent the accumulation of coercive power.

Who's In Charge

Why is government a necessary thing?  If each person is responsible for themselves, is there any need for a government?

Let us begin with the premise that "I Am in Charge of Me".  Each person has the ability and the responsibility to take care of themselves.  But human beings are not born capable of feeding and caring for themselves, so we immediately expand the concept to "We Are in Charge of Us".  Parents have the duty of caring for their children; families take care of their injured or infirm members.  Extended families, churches, clubs, organizations, etc. care for the additional needs that individual people are unable to do on their own.

The first reason for the need for government is to settle disputes.  Generating deeds and titles related to property ownership is a major function of local government.  Once ownership is established then protection of things that are owned is a next logical step.  Police forces and fire departments protect property and also the lives of individual people.  These functions work very well for local governments where it is possible to survey, monitor and maintain control over a limited area of land with an established population of people.  The people who are being served are the logical source of funding (or the provision of volunteers) to serve these functions of government.  Thus the people being served by government functions are the ones contributing to the government functions.

This is the premise of government by the people for the people.  Rather than being ruled by a king or by a distant dictator the people rule themselves – the people solve their own problems.  So long as the people agree to what is equitable (what is fair, right and just) then there is no need for any higher level of government.

But what if the people of the next town see things differently?  What if they believe that the land bordering your town is their property?  What if they want more access to the water supply?  Here is where it is useful for towns and cities to establish a higher level of government that resolves such disputes.  State governments provide a level of recourse to solve disputes between different cities or towns.  State governments provide a shared jurisdiction of authority to resolve these kinds of disputes.  If the citizens of a state desire to use their state government to provide roads and public education then they are free to do so (or they could decided to leave such decisions to local governments or even to the individual people).

Ideally there is no further need for any higher levels of government.  In reality, three areas of additional need exist beyond the ability for a single state to resolve: National Defense of affiliated states, Fair Trade between those states, and Equal Justice regarding property and lives of the people within the states.  These three things are exactly the same three things that the United States Federal Constitution addresses.

General Welfare

What does the phrase "promote the general welfare" really mean?  Is it that the Federal government is charged with ensuring the comfort and safety of every citizen?  This phrase has been widely abused as justification for the Federal government to assert its authority and guidance into the daily lives of its citizens.

Let's start with a four-level scale of doing good for others:  1) I can do good for an individual (specific welfare).  2) I can do good for a small group of people (minority welfare).  3) I can do good for a large group of people (majority welfare).  4) I can do good for all of the people (general welfare).

General Welfare can best be understood by looking at the two words that compose the phrase.  General is the opposite of specific... a general anesthetic numbs a large portion of the body; general operating expenses are the routine costs of running a business.  GENERAL welfare would be something that applies roughly equally to all of the people - all of the citizens - of the United States.

Welfare (before it became a pseudonym for government programs) meant good fortune, health or prosperity.  In other words if something promotes a person's welfare then it generates an enhancement or improvement.  The Federal government is therefore intended to provide improvement in people's lives, not roadblocks to their individual pursuits of happiness.  General WELFARE means that the government's mission is to be a source of positive benefit to the majority of the citizens (if not all of the citizens) without creating conditions for individuals or small groups to gain favor over others.

GENERAL WELFARE means that the Federal government cannot engage in actions which affect or influence only a portion of the population.  The Federal government cannot, for example, engage in a benefit program that only touches people in poverty or people with housing needs or people in need of food.  Those needs are too specific for a Federal government to engage in.  These needs are better addressed by individual people, by churches or other charitable organizations, or (perhaps) by local governments if the people choose to abdicate their responsibility to their neighbors and appoint government representatives instead.  General welfare actually means the opposite of the programs that bear the label "welfare".

Identifying the promotion of the general welfare serves as a limit, not a baseline.  The Federal government must NOT engage in any activity that benefits only a PORTION of the population.  The Federal government must NOT engage in any activity that HARMS the majority of the population.  The Federal government must ONLY engage in those activities that are both 1) generally applicable to all of the citizens (or a vast majority) and 2) serves to enhance, improve or ameliorate the lives of the citizens that it serves.  Some specific examples of General Welfare can be found in the adjacent items in the Preamble: Establish Justice; Insure Domestic Tranquility; and Provide for the Common Defense.

Public Servants vs Career Politicians

How can we ensure that the people we elect to represent us – to serve us – remain true and faithful to the ideals of the government; to the principles of a representative democracy?  In other words, how can we reinforce the concept of service among elected politicians.

In short, never re-elect anyone.

The temptation is significant.  Government becomes its own culture.  Well-financed individuals and businesses seek loopholes, exceptions, lifting of regulations or the creation of restrictions for competitors.  The effort to become re-elected requires funding and the pursuit of funding almost always leads to corruption.

But government isn't really that hard if one sticks to the basic principles.  The complexities and nuances of government only exist when politics and the pursuit of special privileges and advantages enters into government.  When people perceive government as a necessary part of doing everyday business then it means the government has become corrupt.

But isn't government actually necessary to do business?  Actually, no.  If the rules are clear and they apply to everyone, then the only purpose of government is to enforce the existing rules.  When rules are designed equitably and applied equally across the board then it really is not hard, nor time-consuming to manage the government.  A simple, well-written rule does not require an administrator to figure out the nuances.  Simple, well-written rules are easily followed by individual people; and individual people can easily recognize when the rules are not being followed by other people.

And that really is supposed to be how a "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" should operate – without career-oriented specialists.  You don't need a degree in political science to take your turn as a government official.  You just need common sense and the humility to recognize that public service places you below, not above, the people you are serving.

Careerism in politics foments the ideas of exceptionalism and elitism – that government representatives somehow hold a higher place in the hierarchy of human interaction.  We need to exert a much different understanding – that public service is a temporary demotion in one's status; a diversion from one's career path, not an end goal.  We don't need to be rude to our government representatives, but they need to understand that their service is temporary, it is to be given with caution and respect; and it is by no means an opportunity for personal advancement or special privilege.

We don't need a new law or amendment to require term limits.  We only need to spread the shared understanding that to re-elect a person is to inflict harm upon both the re-electee and the people they are elected to serve.  Once the culture of elections and public service shifts then government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Federal Leadership

How do we define "Leadership" for our representatives in the Federal government?

One of the key words in the question is the fact that we elect REPRESENTATIVES to work on our behalf.  The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the people from governmental oppression.  The Constitution was written to clearly reflect that the people are the employers of their governmental representatives.

This means that the true direction of leadership within the original design of the Federal government is from the people down to their representatives.  In other words, the PEOPLE are the leaders; Presidents, Senators, Representatives and Judges are our servants in conducting the business of the Federal government.

The even playing floor - the restrictions - on the representatives of the people are laid out in the Articles of the Constitution and in the amendments.  Amendment One contains five restrictions upon the people's servants.  The first states that "Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion" which means that the representatives of the people shall not restrict the people (their supervisors... their leaders) by taking it upon themselves to establish a Federal religion.  Amendments 9 and 10 further delineate the boundaries of freedom and control by overtly stating that if the Federal Constitution does not specifically define a power as being Federal (within the purview of Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches) then that power - that right - belongs with either the people or their states of residence.

The Federal Constitution is a fairly brief document.  It outlines only three major areas of responsibility for Federal activity: National Defense (primarily an Executive duty), Free Trade (primarily a Legislative duty) and Equal Justice (primarily a Judicial duty).  Day-to-day activities of the people are not something that the Federal government has jurisdiction over.  The people are supposed to be the ones in charge of their lives, their choices and desires.  Likewise it falls to the people to solve problems of poverty, ill health and injury, education, business practices, transportation, housing, etc.  Federal intervention and restrictions assert in incorrect perspective that Federal representatives are the leaders and we are their servants.

When we see injury and destruction from natural disasters it falls upon the people to help each other.  We are free to establish our own organizations such as the Red Cross or various religious organizations to provide emergency aid, food and shelter to our neighbors within our own communities or in other states.  There is no role for government action other than to ensure that the people are not restricted from serving each other.

When we desire to provide an education to our children it falls upon the people to see paths to that goal.  There is no proper role for Federal intervention and restriction (or for that matter Federal funding) to affect the people's decisions in how they wish to establish educational options for their children.  If the people wish to pursue state-level guidelines for education, then they are free to do so (within the boundaries and limitations that their state Constitutions allow) but there is no role for Federal guidance, requirements, or intervention of any kind.

When we see poverty imposing limitations upon people through restricted options for housing, health care or nutrition then it is up to the people to find and provide their own remedies for each other through direct intervention, charities, or even local government policies and programs.  Again, there is no role for Federal intervention which is too distant from the individual to serve their needs.

When the Federal government takes on the responsibilities of the people to do these things, it has the effect of separating the people from their neighbors.  It establishes an expectation that "someone else" will take care of the problems that require local solutions.  Federal intervention severs the individual from their moral responsibilities and the leadership roles they are supposed to step into.

I'm Not Interested in Politics

How do I bring a person who has not been paying attention up to speed?  This is for D.

D is not interested in politics.  Neither am I.  Politics is the worst part of government.

What is government?
Government is people managing the behavior of other people.  Remember the key word is PEOPLE.  Good government depends on choosing good people.  Not choosing smooth people or charismatic people, but GOOD people.  People who can keep a promise.  People who can follow the rules.  People who respect the views of other people.  American governments (Federal, State, County, Local) are built from people making decisions, people respecting or not respecting those decisions, and people either serving the benefit of the people who elected them OR using their positions of power for personal benefit.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.  D... I ask you to read the wikiquote page on Lord Acton (John Dalberg-Acton).  In a letter dated April 5th, 1887 he wrote about the need of the common man to question authority and within that letter he said "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  Acton was a great defender of personal freedom and liberty.  In a public speech he made on February 26th, 1877 Acton said these things:

"By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion."

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end."

My beliefs and desires for our government begins foremost from the belief that human beings should be free to choose their own actions.  Along with this understanding is the requirement that people be allowed to have personal, private property (to own things) and that their bodies are recognized as each person's own property.  If my desire to choose my own actions affects another person's property (either the things they own or their own body) then I need the other person's consent to pursue my choice of action.  In other words, rape is a violation of another person's property and their will.  Murder, assault, theft and slavery are also violations of these basic principles.  So my starting points are 1) personal freedom and 2) private property.  We find these two basic principles reflected in the declaration of Independence... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  I should have the right to live, to be free to choose my own actions, and to pursue happiness by my own definitions, including the power to decide my acquisition and distribution of private property.

This, quite frankly, is enough for me to see the world around me and decide upon the motives of other people, political parties, protest groups or any other way that people organize themselves.  Does "Occupy Wall Street" align with my world view?  No... they are against the idea of private property.  Taken to its extreme the group's philosophy results in anarchy, threats against the safety and security of people, and a weakening of trust and community.  Does any political party align with my world view?  Perhaps, but no one party is consistent enough to maintain even these two basic principles throughout their actions because ultimately the political parties are mechanisms to install PEOPLE into positions of authority and people are easily able to become distracted by the potential for personal gain.

So I choose to advocate for the things that will help me to maintain my personal freedom - to choose my own actions.  I distrust large government "solutions" because the larger the solution, the greater the power of the authorities administrating the "solution".  Medicaid and Medicare provide wonderful services to some people, but they have resulted in restricting people from making decisions that would advance their personal freedom.  They have equated medical services with money in a way that had not  previously existed such that Doctors are now unable to spend more than a few minutes with each patient in order to pay the bills associated with medical practice.  Previously physicians were able to truly care for their patients and did not bill patients for each individual item, test or service provided.  A one-size-fits-all approach to medicine compels doctors and patients to become adversaries instead of cooperating with each other.  Take any government program and investigate it closely - you will discover corruption, abuse of power and a reduction in the freedom of the people being served to choose their own actions.

But we need the government to do these things, don't we? 
Remember what I said before about PEOPLE... people do ALL of these things.  Government is just a small portion of all the people.  Why do the people who take care of our neighbors have to be government-people?  Why can't they just be us?  What is inherently better about government-people providing services that follow broad policies?  Why can't individual people choose to provide the services that different people need based on each person's individual need?  It's still just people working with people... but now it is people CHOOSING to be helpful to others, which instills a personal GRATITUDE to the helper from the person being helped.  When government-people help others, it is not by choice, but by policy (meaning that the helper isn't truly CHOOSING to help).  The help that is given results in expectation and dependency within the person being helped, not gratitude.  In other words, the person receiving assistance feels entitled to it and has no sense of giving anything back to the community themselves.

No.  We don't need GOVERNMENT to provide services to people... we need PEOPLE to see the needs, choose to act on them and then inspire a desire for the recipient to help others as well as themselves.  Free people CHOOSING to help one another leads to a world of cooperation.  Oppressive governments compelling action through policy leads to a world of interpersonal competition and corruption.

I choose freedom.

Please help me to pursue the goals of freedom and personal choice.  Help me to elect good people who desire to serve and to defeat people who use government for personal gain.  CHOOSE to get involved at least that much and I will be very happy.

Two Percent Occupancy

The Assemblies Formerly Known as Occupy Wall Street (TAFKOWS) began with what appeared to be a reasonable delineation... people who's income falls within the 99th percentile and people who's income falls above the 99th percentile.  In terms of American incomes, that mark occurs at just over $506,000.  This is a very arbitrary cut off - the median income (50th percentile) in the US is just over $50,000 and it seems to me that many people making the median income are likely to live their lives in ways that parallel people making over $500,000.  Both are likely to live in houses, own their own automobiles, have access to most amenities and live with little concern about finding their next meal.  America's 50th percentile - that $50,000 threshold - equates to the 93rd percentile worldwide.  Even the poorest Americans - those in the bottom two percent - are still in the top half (62nd percentile) globally.

But identifying income level as a measure of a person's quality of life is a poor match.  Dictatorships and other oppressive regimes punish dissent and disallow the people the opportunity to provide for themselves, regardless of whether self-provision includes income.  In other words, Americans are largely free to grow their own food, should they desire to, and thereafter to store it as a hedge against hard times.  Such freedom, even if executed, rarely is considered in the calculation of incomes.  The opportunities for people to choose their own careers, to pursue education and to provide for their own families has inherent value that does not obviously contribute to household income.

The reason that TAFKOWS chose 99% instead of 50% is the drama, the contrast, the apparent inequity of it.  It presents a false contrast by suggesting that the 99 percent are inherently and drastically different than the remaining 1 percent.  It presents a false sense of righteousness by herding people together for no other reason than a factor as arbitrary as amount of income while ignoring all other variables that may unite or divide groups of Americans.  The division might just as well be between those who have no more than 99% of their natural teeth compared with those who have maintained 100% of their teeth.  The point is to divide us with an overwhelming majority on one side versus a tiny (and somehow unfairly benefited) group on the other side.

My observation of TAFKOWS have lead me to the conclusion that they truly represent only two percent; but I am not delineating by income.  Using David Logan's theory on Tribal Leadership, there are five categories, or "tribes", that can be used to classify all organizational leadership.

• Stage One typifies street gangs who collectively view their lives (and the lives of ALL people) as being lost and without value.  The theme for their outlook is "Life Sucks" and without respect for private property they are inclined toward violence as their primary mechanism to make a difference.  Stage One tribes constitute 2% of organizations.
• Stage Two tribes recognize that human life can have value, but not their own lives.  The theme for their outlook is "My Life Sucks" and they will look upon others with jealousy and complain about inequity.  Stage Two tribes constitute 25% of organizations.
• Stage Three tribes differentiate between their own personal performance and the performances of the other members of their tribes.  They compete against their coworkers or other members of their profession.  The theme for their outlook is "I'm Great but You Suck" and constitute 49% of organizations.
• Stage Four tribes recognize the value of other members and see themselves positively as a unified team in competition with opposing teams.  The theme for their outlook is "We're Great but They Suck" and constitute 23% or organizations.
• Stage Five tribes pursue the greatest good in all people and drive to improve their own lives as well as the people around them.  The theme for their outlook is "Life is Great" and constitute less than 2% of organizations.

TAFKOWS, in my opinion, tend to attract largely Stage One and Stage Two participants.  The Stage One people readily use violence while the Stage Two people shy away from violence but actively voice their complaints and demand that others resolve their perceived inequities.  At the very most TAFKOWS constitute 27% of the American population, but when limited to the hard-core membership, that number dwindles to 2%.  Collectivism guides their philosophy, meaning that they seek a one-size-fits all solution that does not respect diversity or individual freedoms.  The extremists in the movement advocate for confiscation of private property (with the odd assumption that once it is redistributed, they will somehow manage to regain the right to hold their own private property).  The moderates - the stage two members - see that they are disadvantaged and in the name of fairness they should be compensated for their disadvantage by those who enjoy significant advantage (but they are hard-pressed to identify the multiple advantages that they might already enjoy).

Taxed-Enough-Already Patriots (TEAPs), on the other hand, seem to live within the other three stages (and perhaps largely within the upper two stages) of Tribal Leadership.  TEAPs believe in the possibilities of individual freedom and work against the shackles of collectivist solutions.  They organize to pursue benefits that they are ready to step forward and contribute toward rather than demanding that only others sacrifice for the common good.  TEAPs within the upper three stages are not tempted to use violence as a means to their ends and thus pose minimal risks to the people around them, even to detractors from the lower tribes who confront and challenge them.

Logan suggests that members in any given tribal stage can only readily perceive and adopt the arguments of adjacent stages.  In other words trying to convince Stage One Tribe members that Life is Great will serve no purpose except perhaps to anger them.  Instead such a person must be cajoled into believing not that "Life Sucks" but that merely his Life Sucks.  It seems to be a cruel and slow process because only from Stage Two it is then possible to enter the plurality position - the 49% of Stage Three tribalism - where the person acknowledges personal ability and success but still refuses to acknowledge that possibility in others.  Only after accepting the principles that "I'm Great but You Suck" can the person be lead to the more uplifting and productive existence in Stage Four - "We're Great but They Suck."

So while TAFKOWS seek to pull the 49% down to join the ranks of the 25% in Stage Two (and likewise to pull the 25% down to the 2% of Stage One) TEAPS seek to pull the 49% up to the 23% of Stage Four and maybe even a few to the top 2% of Stage Five.  It begins with respect for private property (the boundary between Stage One and Stage Two), expands with the recognition of individual achievement (Stage Three), and continues into true respect for diversity of abilities and talents (and thus diversity of rewards - Stage Four), and culminates in recognition that there truly are no elites on the planet - no group deserving of any more or less than any other group; instead there are individuals who may choose to cooperate rather than compete (Stage Five).

Which tribe are you in?  Which direction are you moving?

But He Loves Me

Why do liberals and Democrats keep supporting the party of slavery? Why do they so blindly ignore the clear abuses of power, the corruption, the blatant use of powerless populations as their mechanism to pursue their own power?

I have finally figured it out. Abuse Syndrome. "Honey, I love you. You mean everything to me. Elect me one more time and I promise I'll change... everything."

In the 1960s it was Democrats who ran the southern state governments. It was Democrats who were members of the KKK. It was Democrats who ignored the lynchings and exonerated the perpetrators. It was Democrats who authorized the use of water canons and attack dogs. "But they love me... they said they'll change... everything."

It was Wilson and FDR who imprisoned ethnic minorities during war time, ignoring their Constitutional rights against seizure without probable cause (4th Amendment), against being deprived of liberty or property without due process (5th Amendment), and against being held indefinitely without a speedy trial or the right to confront the witnesses against them (6th Amendment). "But they are for the little guy... they love us... they promised to change... everything."

It was big nationalistic government advocates (Democrats and RINOs) who pointed us into greater reliance and dependence upon agencies and organizations to manage our "health care". A hundred years ago there was no such thing as "health insurance" and suddenly now it is the ONLY path to providing "health care"?

Health Care is based on the decisions WE make for OURSELVES... what WE eat, how WE live, what WE do. If we end up with a broken limb, it is up to us to pursue treatment for the break. There is no inherent cost in any form of health care. If you know a person with the skills to reset your limb, the two of you can negotiate your own terms to receive the "health care" needed to reset your limb and heal. Maybe that's a free gift because the healer doesn't feel it's right to charge anything. Maybe you agree to help them replace the leaking roof on their house. Maybe you decide to provide a portion of the results of your labor (known in some places as "money") in gratitude for the service you have received.

Or maybe you turn to your abuser who says "Don't worry, I've got this covered" and the abuser threatens your healer. "So you like this office you have, right? You wouldn't want anything to happen to it, right?" The abuser takes over the decision process. "Don't put that pacemaker in... just give her some pain pills instead." "He just wants what's best for me... he promised to take care of me... he loves me... he's just busy changing... everything."

Placing our trust into people of authority is a mechanism for reducing our personal stress. We see a problem that we cannot solve on our own, someone says that they'll solve the problem for us if we just vote for them. We feel that we have done something toward making things better, but we don't recognize our responsibilities of oversight. We elect them... therefore we are their supervisors; but we refuse to hold them accountable for their actions.

They fail to solve the problem and then they use the resulting crisis to increase their own power, to increase their own personal wealth and that of their closest friends. The situation is more dire and desperate and they claim that they just need more time, more power, more of our money, more government authority, more government employees... because they really love us and they just want to take care of us.

It's OK, honey. Don't worry about it. Yes, the economy is walking with a limp... yes, the racial tensions have increased and people fear and distrust each other more than they have in a long time. Yes, the poor have had their eyes directed away from their government slave-owners and pointed toward the former slaves who have found freedom while being told "they are your problem... they take all of your money... they are keeping your poor."

It's OK, child... The only reason they beat you up is because they love you SO MUCH. Just wait... stick with them. They're gonna change EVERYTHING!

Collectivism, Individualism & Socialism

Why is socialism so appealing? The answer is simply because every human being on the planet -every mammal, in fact - was born into it. If we take the phrase "From each according to his means, to each according to his need" as the definition of Socialism, then we understand that no infant could live without its needs being met by others who had the means to care for it.

This is the beauty of true, individualistic socialism: That the needs of family members are addressed by family members. This arrangement requires that each person giving does so of their own volition. It also requires that the person receiving does so with gratitude and appreciation. In other words, the socialism of the functional family relies on individual agreement to participate within it. If a caregiver is coerced into giving or if a recipient comes to believe that they have earned the right to receive then the whole thing falls apart. No longer will the giver provide the best that is possible. No longer will the recipient be satisfied. If there is external pressure given to maintain the socialism of a dysfunctional family, then it becomes collectivistic socialism.

Individualism respects the rights and responsibilities of the individual. It requires an understanding of personal property and privacy. Individualistic religions expect the person to make their own decisions about their beliefs and respects the dissent of people who choose not to believe as the majority do. Individual socialism allows the individual to establish their own relationships of giving and receiving so that there remains personal responsibilities between the participants. Individual Capitalism allows people to trade freely, ability/asset for ability/asset, without coercion from external forces.

Collectivism denies the individual privacy or personal property. Collectivism compels compliance with societal rules such that people of privilege or power can determine which rules apply to the masses and which apply to the elite. Collectivistic religions demand that populations adopt their beliefs uniformly and without individual variation - to the point that resistance to submit ultimately ends in the death of the non-believer. Collective socialism strips individual preferences and desires from all but the elite and spreads misery equally among the masses. Collectivistic Capitalism limits the items that can be traded, establishes standard values for the trades, and intrudes external oversight and taxation into the trades between individuals.

All philosophies of religion and political organization can be segmented into individualistic or collectivistic versions. Libertarianism generally leans toward individualistic perspectives - that the individual should be free to determine their own morality and path in life. If the right to privacy and personal property are maintained then it is understood that personal choices should be curtailed when they infringe on the choices of other people. Communism generally leans toward collectivistic perspectives - that there is no individual privacy or property - that all people are in essence the property of the state.

In simple terms, Individualism = Freedom & Self-determination; Collectivism = Slavery & Limitations. So when we freely choose to engage in giving our assets and/or talents to others we choose individualistic socialism. When private property is confiscated or externally allocated then collectivism has overtaken individual liberty and freedom.

Federal Health Care and Contraception

Rights and Responsibilities.

If you identify the holder of the responsibilities, you identify the holder of the rights. Your right to free speech is YOUR right... speak out, or don't speak out. You hold the right and the First Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution ensures that it remains your right - the Federal government does not have the right to control, tamper or threaten your right to free speech.

Currently American citizens have the right to elect to use or not to use contraception. They have the right to choose which types, which brand names they prefer and even the quantity that they may obtain. The Federal government does not have any authority to override this right of American citizens.

A Federalized health care system, however, would infringe on the rights of Americans to direct their health care choices as they themselves determine. A Federalized health care system could dictate that all Americans must obtain contraception. Likewise that power and authority could be used to prohibit Americans from obtaining any form of contraception.

The fact that some forms of contraception currently have any regulation by the Federal government reveals that the Federal government is already reaching beyond its Constitutionally-proscribed boundaries. The ninth and tenth amendments clearly direct the Federal government to leave issues not specified in the US Constitution to the authority of the people and of the states. States have the authority to regulate products sold within their boundaries and thus they may regulate which contraceptive devices or medications are permitted. Likewise the people are free to choose to purchase or not to purchase any of the state-permitted options. The Federal government was never given the authority to interfere or in any way direct the decisions of the people or of the states regarding their personal care.

If you think that the Federal government providing "free" contraception means that the individual has been empowered, then you are missing the reality surrounding the intrusion of Federal bureaucracy into the lives of individual people. Perhaps you think that "free" contraception means that you will get birth control pills. Perhaps it means "free" condoms. Perhaps it means free medical or surgical services. Ultimately it only means that you are not free to choose and decide for yourself. You want birth control pills, but the "free" care that is available to you is to receive counseling on making use of the Rhythm Method. You want an abortion but the "free" care that the government pursues is to tell you to wait ten months for them to provide the abortion service to you.

A Federal health care system removes the freedom of these choices from the individual and isolates the choice to authorities who are distant from individual decisions about preference or choice. A Federal health care system empowers the Federal government to dictate which people receive medical care, which options of care are permitted, and how soon or how long that care would be provided. These powers run contrary to the freedoms intended in the US Federal Constitution.

Advancing Slavery

Regarding Slavery....

It was left to the people and the states to decide. That was the original position of the Founders and the Constitution. The "enumeration clause" of the Constitution did, however, provide an incentive for the people and the states to choose to end slavery. States that allowed slavery were only allowed to count 60% of their slaves toward their allotment of representatives. States without slaves were entitled to count 100% of their populations toward representation. But the Federal Government did not impose a one-size-fits-all solution to the slavery issue. The Constitution left it to American society to figure out how to get rid of slavery all on its own.

The one foot in the door was the "Fugitive Slave Clause" found in the second paragraph of Article IV, Section 2. This portion of the Constitution clearly indicated that a slave who escaped the jurisdiction of a slavery-permitting state remained a slave and could be collected by his or her owner and returned rather than being declared free. The Constitution did not provide a clear mechanism for how this might be done, however, and Congress authorized the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 to establish that a court proceeding was required and that people who assisted escaped slaves were only subject to a fine, but not prison time. Free states were not required to be helpful to the slave owners in pursuing their escaped slaves and many jurisdictions either refused to convict escaped slaves or adopted sanctuary laws that would protect escaped slaves.

Within sixty years the Federal Government began to move more aggressively when Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Now Federal marshals were compelled to assist in the process of returning slaves to their owners.

When the Federal Constitution was ratified in 1788 five of the original thirteen states had already abolished slavery - Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Vermont abolished slavery in its 1777 founding, but it was the fourteenth state, not a member of the original thirteen states.

By 1804, just sixteen years into the existence of the United States, nine out of the seventeen states at that time had abolished slavery - a majority of 53%.

When the Republican Party was established in Wisconsin in 1854 as an anti-slavery political party it clarified the debate and quickly became the dominant political party of Northern states. By 1858 there were 17 states that had abolished slavery out of 32 (still a 53% majority). That year was also the first year that the Republican Party gained control of the House of Representatives. In 1860 the anti-slavery Republicans gained control of the Presidency and of the Senate for the first time. The Federal government of the United States, for the first time in its history, was under majority control of a political party that had as its stated goal the abolition of slavery.

Seven of the Southern states seceded from the United States before Lincoln was inaugurated. The other four Southern states seceded within a few months of Lincoln becoming president. This arrangement left an unbeatable majority in the U.S. Federal government to eventually impose the abolition of slavery and override the right of the people and of the states to choose for themselves how to end slavery. In essence, the secession of the Southern states ultimately resulted in them being forced to abolish slavery, once they had lost the war. Had they remained as participating states in the Federal union, they might have found free-choice alternatives of their own making to eventually abolish slavery.

Fast-Forward to the new century - the 1900s.

Out of power Democrats and boldly empowered Republicans began to embrace the ideology of Progressivism, which sought to impose improvements on the human condition through government laws and regulation. The appeal of Progressivism is to impose morality through government dictates. The major flaw of Progressivism is that it fails to recognize the role of the individual in determining morality and in behaving morally. Government had recently imposed the moral decision to abolish slavery... why not apply the same principle to other issues?

While slavery is technically limited to some people owning other people, Progressivism is only a modified form of slavery because it permits an elite, self-empowered group to dictate behavior for other non-members of the elite.

Progressivism says that the people and the states won't be able to preserve the natural beauty of the land, therefore the Federal Government will exceed its Constitutional boundaries and gain control of land not for military bases or Federal offices and establish National Parks. New York's Niagara Falls State Park and Colorado Spring's Garden of the Gods Park prove that non-Federal jurisdictions are perfectly capable of preserving their own natural habitats.

Progressivism says that people should save for their retirement years and that the Federal Government will exceed its Constitutional boundaries and mandate a one-size-fits-all solution in the form of Social Security, then steal those funds from the very people it is intended to benefit, while preventing the people from making investments of their own with the funds.

Progressivism says that the Federal Government will exceed its Constitutional mandate to collect taxes in a fair and equitable manner from all people and all states by establishing an income tax system that violates the Fourth Amendment guarantees of citizens being secure in their personal records and documents while establishing variation in taxation rates and deductions such that no two citizens are likely to either pay the same amount nor pay the same percentage of their incomes.

Progressivism says that the Federal Government will impose one-size-fits-all standards upon the educational practices of all schools in the United States instead of allowing State and Local jurisdictions to make decisions guided by the needs and expectations of their own people.

Progressivism says that the Federal Government will violate it's Constitutional mandate not to show favor to any group - to treat all people and all states equally - by awarding housing, food and subsistence programs to some people but not to all people to equal amounts; thus overriding the ability for private citizens to more effectively help each other or for local jurisdictions to establish their own mechanisms for helping people with specific needs.

When the Federal Government abolished slavery, imposing a morality upon the people and the states, it opened the door for imposing all forms of morality upon its citizens. Abolishing slavery was the right choice, but the mechanism of imposing morality in effect established a new form of slavery - the people and the states were no longer free to make their own decisions, to learn, to improve themselves, to make the right decisions because they came to those decisions on their own.

Slavery was originally allowed as a decision of the people and the states - not endorsed or promoted by the Federal Government. Progressive policies which dictate personal behavior and state policies are simply an advancement of slavery up to the Federal level. Although it is now illegal for one person to own another person in the United States, it has become accepted that an elite group will dictate and control the behavior of ALL of the citizens of the United States.

So the question remains... did we really abolish slavery, or did we instead broaden and expand it to become national policy?

Ten Things to Re-Think

#1 - Your RIGHT is your RESPONSIBILITY

The first amendement to the US Constitution states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Each of these rights are owned by the people and Congress cannot infringe upon them. The right to free speech requires a person to act upon it to exercise the right. The government cannot compel you to speak in any way. It is your responsibility to decide to exercise the right. Likewise the right to peaceably assemble is the individual person's responsibility. The government cannot coerce you either to assemble or not to assemble. If you assemble with others then it remains your responsibility for you to be "peaceable" to maintain the right. The government is not responsible to provide you a place to assemble nor is it responsible to transport you to a place of assembly. It is your right to assemble but also your responsibility to put out the effort and identify/reserve a place for assembly and to transport yourself there.

Likewise with Religion. Congress cannot prevent your free expression of religious belief nor can they compel any given religious belief; and yet, it is up to you to even have any religious belief. Your religion is your right and your responsibility. The government does not fund or provide churches for you to attend. If you want to have a church, it's up to you - not the government.

The press has the right to publish freely, and thus they have the responsibility to choose to do so. They cannot be compelled to publish nor can they be prevented, but the government does not publish their work... it is their responsibility to find the means to publish.

So do you have a right to health care? Of course. The ninth amendment states

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Therefore anything not overtly stated in the Constitution remains your right, and thus your responsibility. You want the freedom to choose your own health care? Of course. That has been your right since 1791. But recognize that it is also your responsibility to provide for it.

If you ask for government to become responsible for health care then you are ceding your right to health care. You are effectively yielding your right to make decisions about health care to the government because the party that bears the responsibility holds the right. If government is responsible to provide health care then you no longer have the right to freely make decisions about your health care. Government-directed health care is not a right of the people but rather it is a right of the government to coerce and control the people.

If you ask for government to become responsible for national defense then you are ceding your right to defend your nation on your own. In fact, this is a right carved out specifically for the Federal Government. Neither the people nor the states have the right to defend the nation... that right - and it's responsibility - is identified as the government's beginning in the Preamble and also in Section 8 of Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So does the next phrase mean that Congress has the responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the US? Of course it does. The key is to understand what "General Welfare" means.

#2 - General Welfare means an equal treatment of benevolence to all, but not to any individual or group

General Welfare means the well-being or benefit to all in equal measure. This means that the Federal Government is prohibited from establishing a policy or procedure that benefits any individual, group, city, region, state, class or any other group of people in any way differently from any other group.

In other words, it is not appropriate for the Federal Government to issue money to one person or any group of people without issuing the same amount to every person. It is not appropriate for the Federal Government to issue regulations that restrict or encourage any business differently from any other business. These points of differentiation are allowed by the state governments and/or the people. Amendment #10 states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Another key factor in the US Constitution that supports this philosophical understanding the the phrase "General Welfare" can be found in the last portion of the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This portion emphasizes that General Welfare means that actions by the Federal Government must be beneficial to all the states and all the people, punish none of them, and otherwise cause no harm or preference to anyone.

Thus it is not appropriate for the Federal Government to be involved with any policy that treats senior citizens differently from younger people. It is not appropriate for the Federal Government to provide health care for some people and not for others. It is not appropriate for the Federal Government to collect taxes from any individual or group of people in any way that is different from collecting from others.

#3 - Fair Taxation means either everyone pays the same amount or everyone pays the same percentage

The sixteenth amendment to the US Constitution provided the permission for the Federal Government to gain access to individual people's income regardless of how many people reside in a state or how much money is collected from one state as compared to another state

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This amendment, in combination with the proper understanding of general welfare and the requirement that "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States " specifically prevents the concept of progressive taxation or creating any exceptions from taxation. In other words, all people who earn an income in the United States are subject to either paying the same amount of money as a tax upon income (for example, every person who earns an income pays $100, regardless of how much they earn) or they must pay the same percentage (for example, everyone pays ten percent - no more and no less - no exceptions based on whether you have a house, give to charity, have children, etc. If you earn an income then you pay ten percent, just like all other people who earn an income).

#4 - There is no such thing as "The Economy", there are multiple economies.

The common practice of referring to economic hardships with a single overarching label of "The Economy" reveals a significant misunderstanding of the term. Economies exist between people, not within governments. Each state has the power to enact laws that may affect the economies between its citizens. Likewise county and city governments may also enact legislation that affects economic conditions. The Federal Government should not be actively engaged in the economies of its people or states other than to create a stable currency of common exchange.

#5 - The Federal Government is only supposed to control land for the purposes of military bases or locating Federal offices.

The Louisiana Purchase was certainly allowable as a private venture, but the use of Federal funds to do it placed the Federal government into the new position of being a deed holder for land outside of its Constitutional authority. The Constitution does not provide for the Federal Government to own or control any land in any state or territory other than for military bases and for Federal offices. Lands used for highways, parks, or otherwise under Federal control should be returned to their rightful owners - the states (or territories) in which they are located.

#6 - Federal budgets have a built-in limit of two years, maximum.

The Constitution identifies the House of Representatives as being the branch of government that initiates all Federal spending and budgets. No representative has a term of greater than two years. Logic dictates, therefore, that the longest duration that a Federal budget could be in effect is two years. In fact the Constitution dictates that Congress is allowed to budget no longer than two years for military spending. Any Federal budget that extends beyond two years is a falsification because no subsequent Congress is bound by the budgets of previous Congresses.

#7 - There is no requirement to re-elect any Representative, Senator or President

The Constitution does not prohibit the re-election of the people's and states' representatives, but neither does it require re-election. The practice of referring to new Congressional representatives as "Freshmen" implies a longevity not found or implied within the Constitution. There is no need to ever re-elect any person to Federal service. It would likely serve the freedoms of the people well to never re-elect any person to Federal office. Eliminating re-election would reduce the abuse of power inherent in incumbents being able to campaign while simultaneously serving in office. No Constitutional amendment is required to pursue this option - the supervisors of the US Constitution (We The People) simply need to agree to cease extending the contracts of our representatives.

#8 - Representatives were originally intended to actually know the majority of the people they served.

The Constitution originally established a ratio of one representative for every 30,000 people. It does not mandate that ratio and Congress has long ago taken steps to alter the number of representatives to an exact maximum of 435. This means that as the population grows, each person has less and less power (less and less personal proportion of representation) within the Federal Government. It is not reasonable for a single person to effectively represent the needs and interests of 450,000 people. Although the House chambers would be overwhelmed with the physical space requirements for re-establishing a one-to-thirty-thousand ratio, the interests of the people would be much better served. There is no requirement that Congress physically meets more than once a year and housing Congressional offices within their local districts would ensure greater accountability to having them truly represent their constituents.

#9 - The Federal Government has only three primary responsibilities: Provide National Defense, Oversee Equal Justice, and Ensure Free Trade.

The Constitution clearly defines these three roles and empowers each branch with either primary responsibility or tertiary oversight. The Executive Branch is primarily responsible to provide National Defense, the Judicial Branch is primarily responsible to oversee equal justice, and the Legislative Branch is primarily responsible to undo the restrictions on trade established within and between the states.

#10 - The Federal Government may not collect or record any information about a person without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment states

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable 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.

This implies that without a warrant the Federal Government cannot collect nor maintain any specific information about any single individual person. The Federal Government cannot dictate how a person is to be able to live and direct their own life, nor how they establish or maintain their own housing. The Federal Government has no right to any paperwork or personal documentation regarding a person nor any property that the person owns or controls. The rights of the people to control these things can only be yielded to the Federal Government if the Federal Government pursues and obtains legally issued warrants.

So how can the Federal government be involved in providing housing for anyone? Providing food? What about knowing how much you have earned or knowing anything (ANYTHING) about your medical history? Such things are not the purview of the Federal government. Should the people or the states wish to devise a mechanism to provide these things to anyone, they have the right to do so, but the Federal government must not play any role in it, nor do they have any right to the documentation of these things without first issuing proper warrants.

Eliminate Federal Re-election

Reelection is a symptom of apathy.  Disengaged voters allow existing politicians to stay in political office and increase their personal power.  It is far easier for the overseer, the citizen electorate, to ignore their responsibilities, assume that the politician knows what they are doing, and just vote for the familiar name on the ballot.

The Federal Constitution outlines three distinct term limits.  Representatives in the House serve a two-year term, Senators serve a six-year term (with one third of the group being chosen every two years to ensure that two-thirds of the group provide continuity) and the President serves a four-year term.  The Federal Constitution neither encourages nor prevents reelection but by its design it implies no need whatsoever for any representative, senator or president to be reelected.  Reelection to Federal service satisfies no inherent need in the system.

Service at the Federal level was only designed to be a lifetime commitment for the judiciary. Article III, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution identifies that Federal Judges are appointed to serve a life-time position - "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour..."  There was originally no definition of term limits of any type for any other Federal position.

Only after FDR's historical reelection to third and fourth terms did Congress act (and the States ratify - in 1951) the 22nd amendment which limits the President to two full terms. Had Congress had enough foresight and understanding, however, they might well have limited all Federal service to a single term.

Reelection encourages corruption.  Reelection fosters a culture of elitist entitlement.  Reelection distances our public servants from their gratitude to the public and their attitude of service.  Reelection, in short, is counterproductive to the goal of protecting the liberties of the people.

A conscientious and attentive populace should be easily able to find new candidates to replace the current office-holder at every election.  If the culture of Federal politics were changed to expect only single terms of office then each election would place all candidates on equal footing because incumbency carries significant privilege and advantage.  Just look at the power and prestige that an incumbent president has while campaigning for reelection.  The travel expenses alone are supplemented through public expenditure while non-incumbant candidates must cover their own costs.

Reelection is a form of codependency. By re-electing a person to office we are postponing that person's return to productivity.  Public service should be entered into much the same way as community service. People provide a set number of hours of community service (often as a form of punishment or restitution) and upon completion of the hours they are released from their duties.  Rather than sending hardened criminals into public service (which to some extent we already do, given the amount of corruption committed by career politicians) we should seek to find honest and trustworthy citizens to represent us and then call them back home and out of harms way once that service term is complete.  We have no shortage of citizens to serve in these roles.  Let's spread the civic duty a bit more evenly among us all.

The Masters and the Slaves

The mist slowly lingers above the plantation's fields. Vague shapes and shadows of people can be seen across the landscape. Some ride horses. Some are pulling wagons. Some push wheelbarrows. Some work shovels, hoes, or axes on their own. Others are clustered into teams working to improve the irrigation, build a storage shelter, or construct a bridge across the creek. As the sun burns warmer across the rural patchwork the mist subsides and reveals glistening thin tendrils that are attached to each person's back. Following the web to its center one sees a grand white mansion.

Within the lower levels of the mansion are teeming masses of people, shackled to the floors and walls, waiting for other servants to issue the daily rations of food and ambrosia, which keeps them in their stupor. They gaze uncomprehendingly toward others who cast the blame for their misery to the wealthy field workers. Why should they have horses and you do not? Some of them have wagons! Why should they have first access to the food? They have enough food. They should send more of it inside the mansion.

Outside a field slave falls from his horse. Shapes emerge from the mansion, carry the slave inside, provide ambrosia and gruel as fresh glistening tendrils emerge from the floorboards, binding the field slave to the base of the mansion. As for the horse, rather than a healthy house slave being released to ride it and continue on, it removed from the fields and slaughtered. Its remains are carried to the mansion.

As one looks closer at the mansion it becomes obvious that the paint is peeling, rats have gnawed holes through baseboards and the smell of urine rises from each house slave because they are prevented from caring for their own basic needs. The winding grand staircase, however, reveals polished oak rails, waxed granite steps and a crystal chandelier suspended above the center of it's massive spiral.

A visit to each higher level of the upper floors reveals more people. Some focused on the floors below them, manipulating the comfort and pain of the house slaves by tightening or loosening the tendrils that bind them. Higher floors are filled with people holding the thin tendrils of power that emerge from the mansion to regulate and administrate the field workers. The highest levels reveal more administrators in suits who control the people below them.

An order is issued from the top floors of the mansion. Field workers must eat less of the food and send more inside the mansion. As the field workers cut back on their own sustenance, the overall productivity of the plantation begins to decline. Less food is planted, less is grown, less is harvested. Other workers collect the required quantities of food and it is delivered to the top floors of the mansion where a portion is processed into gruel and ambrosia, which is then piped down to the bottom floor to feed the masses while those on the upper floors feast.

The observer can see the pattern all too clearly. The masters punish the field slaves and confiscate their productivity. A small portion of the confiscated wealth is distributed to the masses trapped within the mansions lower levels while they are told it is the field slaves who are keeping them down. Field slaves who fail find themselves cared for not by their fellow field slaves but become house slaves, subsisting on the gruel and ambrosia that the masters provide. Each new tightening, each added restriction to the field slaves further dooms the fate of the house slaves, dooms the fate of the masters (but they will be the last to be affected).

Eventually, the master will have no choice but to eliminate the weakest of the house slaves in the name of serving the greater good, of placing the interests of the many above the few. The field slaves will revolt because they are on the verge of starving themselves and no longer have the strength to bear the burdens of the house slaves and the masters. The masters will execute the most outspoken of the field slaves, removing their most effective producers. Further shortages will emerge. Rules and regulations will be tightened. Productivity will further decline. More will go hungry.

Desperate the masters will force the house slaves into the fields, but they are weak, untrained, and unable to replace the productivity of the field slaves. Masters will eliminate unproductive workers and chaos will ensue. What was once a grand and prosperous plantation is quickly falling into ruins, awaiting an invasion from other forces eager to acquire its rich and productive land.

Unreasonable Searches

The Fourth Amendment states

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable 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.

Do you have control of your person, house, papers and effects?  Let me ask it this way... does anyone else have control over any of these things?  If you have a cell phone, if you have an email address, if you have an on-line account with ANY business then your security against unreasonable searches and seizures is at serious risk.  All it takes is a Federal agent to contact your service provider with a request to obtain records for the purpose of preventing national terrorism and your security has been violated without your knowledge.  With or without a warrant, Federal agents have access to significant information about the details of your daily life, including what roads you travelled, where you spent your money, and even who you have had contact with (either by phone, text, email or web-site visits).

If the government does nothing with this information then it's trivial, right?  I mean, no harm, no foul... right?  The problem is that this data does not disappear.  It remains available throughout your lifetime.  If the government right now does nothing with the information, that's fine; but what about a future government?  What about a government that does not respect the right to privacy or the rights of the individual to pursue the benefits of liberty and pursuit of personal happiness?  Today's data remains available for tomorrow's oppressor.

The real resolution to this problem cannot be laws or guidelines to restrict government access because any subsequent government can either ignore or terminate those restrictions.  The challenge is to eliminate the continuation of holding those records or, even better, the creation of those records.

There is no clear and clean solution to this issue that I can recommend at this time.  I simply am advising you that your right to security - to privacy - that the fourth amendment proposes is already seriously eroded.  Be careful in your actions and the documentation that is created.  Likewise, be careful in the power you grant to government.  There will probably be no way to eliminate the records.  The only recourse is to oversee the potential abusers... government officials who seek personal retribution or privilege.  Be careful who you elect and limit your trust that the government will always do what is right.

Internalized Oppression

How did the party of slavery gain the undying loyalty of the people it enslaved? How did the objects of racial discrimination become widespread practitioners of racism? The answer is internalized oppression.

The United States Federal Constitution provided in its Preamble the basis for individual freedom: "We the people of the United States, in order to ... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Within the very next Article of the Constitution slavery is discounted from being a full political powerbase through the three-fifths clause, which directly encouraged slave-holding states to eliminate slavery in exchange for greater political power.

With such strong evidence that the ultimate intended goal of individual freedom for all of the citizens of each of the United States it can be mystifying how people assert the opposite position. The willingness of an oppressed people to maintain strong collective emotional ties to their oppressors and to ignore opportunities of individual freedom is a very real result of internalized oppression. It is the power that marched six million jews to their own passive slavery and deaths in the first half of the twentieth century. It is the power that stripped Deaf people of the freedom to use signed languages in their own educational settings during the same time. It is the power that converted the children of former slaves to become political slaves of their former masters. It's power is very real.

Internalized Oppression begins with one group oppressing another. Economic status and power are always the basic motivations for oppression - the oppressors gain personal status and wealth at the expense of the oppressed. All instances of slavery around the world, past and present, are examples of these basic motivations. The oppression of Jews in the first half of the twentieth century provided a means of political power to the Nationalist Socialist party of Germany. The oppression of Deaf people in Europe was solidified in 1880 when at a conference in Milan educators who themselves were not Deaf proclaimed signed languages to be detrimental to the education of Deaf children and subsequently reversed nearly all of the advances that Deaf people had achieved prior to that time by taking over the administration and teaching positions - the power and money - related to Deaf education.

Children and grandchildren of slaves were threatened and intimidated in their individual freedom by their former slave masters and ultimately coerced into accepting the exchange of political and financial power for relative peace. Through an additional one-hundred years of oppression after the Civil War, descendants of slaves were systematically oppressed so that multiple generations accepted their condition as second-class citizens.