What do you stand for?

[sweetheart]

I am left with the political conundrum of what "I" stand for,
whatever that is, contrasted with what i must "vote" for. Prior to
the 2000 election, i did not care. So after years now on DU and
other areas to chat on said topics, "I" am a libertarian
socialist. I pretty much agree with what people say on DU, and if
i don't, when we have a chat, i agree. It makes me not "anything"
politically, really, just at this point in my life, it is the best
wisdom i've awakened to "libertarian socialism". Using the
universal declaration of human rights as guidance, for a
sustainable government designed to actually achieve those rights for
all peoples on the earth. When every person on the earth has the
right to life and liberty, we will have come a very long way. This
would involve a universal stand down in military empire towards
education and healthcare for the all the people on the earth.

The 2000 election abrogated, broke and otherwise smote asunder the
constitution the republic has lived under since 1776. It is not in
force anymore. Bush's America is a great house filled with rats who
have chewed the old document to bits, as well as any principals that
were in it.

As a post-mortem on that republic, and this period of "musharraf-
bush" effective dictatorship. Political Pluralism is systematically
crushed in the american media, by the oligarchy of TV and radio
broadcasting business. Media has failed in its function to
discover and expose incompetent government, and has instead become
the window dressing on a coup.

The republican party claims to speak for the republic, when the
party itself has raped the republic and left her weak and divided.

WHen the republic takes on a new constitution, after this 2000-2004
gap of criminal government, it needs to fix loopholes the founders
did not fill in the original:

1. Finance - The federal reserve system and as well, the central
bank that has designed credit origination in its open markets
committee. This group is antidemocratic, and puts the public
goodwill in to the pockets of the priviledged. This should be a
formal part of the government with public elected officials. As
well, the financial system cannot be used to buy votes, as by
defining money and trade, the constitution would clarify plutocracy
and democracy.

2. Mass Electronic Media - These media have taken over elections.
There should be a total media blackout on political broadcasting 6
weeks before an election. This would include billboards and all
political advertizing. Segment-marketed mass media violate the
principals of fair elections and should be formally, by law,
regulated. In this area, business-legal-media could be regulated
that business-false-persons have limited rights to speech and
representation... as in truth all a business is anymore is a bunch
of computer records at the bank and treasury, and these are regulated
by mass electronic media.

3. Separation of Church and state - Freedom of religion yet that
all religions are equal. No government religions.

4. Clarifiction of rights to bear arms - militia only.

5. Voting rights and gerrymandering - The constitution should
declare a mathematical system for zoning that is totally unbias, and
makes election districts democratic. As well, it is the right of
all american citizns to be counted. ALL. During times of strife, a
40% vote of the congress could request a 100% population
referendum, and a re-vote in elections where the results are within
error margins.

By severing the money-elections link, and eliminating tampering by
media, and eliminating election fraud, the rest of the goodwill of
the american people can re-assert itself.

That aside, anyone but bush to restore the republic's integrity.

[JNelson6563]

1. Very nice post

Well done!!

Julie

[hang a left]

2. I am in agreement for the most part

Except on this issue

4. Clarifiction of rights to bear arms - militia only.

Unfortunately, I do not find fault with just republicans for the distruction of our constitution, bill of rights, or our country.

[sweetheart]

3. On that right to bear arms

The founder's clear intent was a standing armed milita. Methinks that it is not an issue for arms to be in the public common, but to not have them under strict registration requirements is irresponsible.

Myself i like archery, and shoot what could be a lethal weapon. But that begs the question of what a lethal weapon is, and geesh, its pretty much anything given the intent to kill. A car is very deadly, so simply banning possession of the weapon does little.

The question however, is the intent of the weapon. Guns kill big animals and people. The need for this skill is rather restricted, and rightfully should be restricted.

I would consider liberal gun registration if all guns were only capable of being fired by their "owner"... some kind of biometric perhaps. Then if we find a gun victem, we know who did it.

Personally, my radical militarist ID, agrees with total freedom to own weapons. I think our society would be very different if every citizen could afford to have a 100 megatonne thermonuclear weapon in their home, with a backup system in the garage. If everyone has MAD, then anyone with fatalistic dissent becomes capable of killing 10 million people. However, freedom to own an arm is what the constitution says.

I think its time that citizen armies are allowed to compete with the military on providing offensive weapons. Then more competition can go in to delivering nuclear weapons quickly and achieving an armstice before everyone is killed and no country is left to fight over.

And then when the good hearted gun owner is walking one day to meet his daughter for a drink, he is cut down by a 13 year old sniper who saw the same thing while playing with his video game version. The guy who died, looked a lot like the dead guy in the video game. Life is SOOOO real, its almost better than video games.

The arms we release towards densly-living human beings, could be more wisely re=thought... even a second amendment purist, must confess, that arms ownership implies a social obligation to behave properly with the deadly weapon. Licensing, just like drivers licensing should be for gun owners, and competency with weapon demonstrated, like a "class 3, 4, 6" weapons license. Safe weapons owners are not the issue, yet, as with terrorism, some licensing and data monitoring is reasonable to make sure gun crime diminishes.

All of these things would naturally come about if reasonable discussion happened in the public common. A 14 years old with a handgun is as deadly as a military commando. Perhaps more 14 years olds with nuclear weapons would at least create a darwinian rethink on the constitutionality of free weapons proliferation. indeed. :-)

[immoderate]

4. My impression is...

That the people are the militia.

I've used the term libertarian socialist also.

Don't forget freedom from religion.

--IMM

[sweetheart]

10. Freedom from religion

I used "religion" to mean:

Anything a person believes. If they "believe" they hate people from San Antonio, it becomes a sort of religion. A cult could form about people not liking a sports franchise, or in drinking a soft drink, or in old churches and temples. Freedom of religion is that we all are in our own cults, and that we can change and switch religions including "aetheism" and "nihilism" Freedom of religion, tolerates ideaological radicals, IMO, and the more radical and cutting edge, the better for all peoples.

Religion divides, yet i believe very strongly that buddhist meditation is a wise path in life, and would recommend it. Hinduism also, i think has very wise sects, profound wise sects. I could not live in a country that did not have freedom of religion. I would leave, or never go to a place like that. It is a sacred sacred right that religious freedom and tolerance.

The religion of the Madonna lovers and the Brittany lovers is not mutually exlusive. Before we open our mouths, were we to meet in silence and to spend 2 days without speaking a word. Would not the sound of the ocean be our unity. The thunder of silence we share. My religion is silence, absence, emptyness, not defined, unabsolved, unthought, unaware, awareness, that we all share this profound emptyness that surrounds us with silence.

I can get on quite a zealot's rant about religion, and in words, i counfound and divide. Outside of my tiny ego self, a system of government then congruent with my own life, is that all religions should be tolerated equally. People who members of the Jedi Knights order are welcome, as well as believers in cannabis smoking, and believers in motorcycle racing.

Archer's arrows shot from a powerful bow, can penetrate the petrol tank of a motorcycle, that it require maintenance. ;-)

[Superfly]

5. Truth, Justice, and the American Way...

I'm Superman!

[sweetheart]

8. And apple pie

and hot lustful sex. :-)

[Superfly]

6. Question...

What "militia"?

This one? MOM

[welshTerrier2]

7. great effort ...

i commend you on such a comprehensive personal statement of your views ...

having said that, i have disagreements with two specific issues you raised ...

1. There should be a total media blackout on political broadcasting 6 weeks before an election.

i'm not sure what this would accomplish ... either political broadcasting is a good thing or it is not ... by setting this arbitrary 6 week cutoff, all you seem to accomplish is locking in the current status of things 6 weeks earlier ... i would be more in favor of redefining the rules of political broadcasting ... i hate announcers with sinister voices trying to convince people that the other candidate wants to kill all the babies ... i'd like to see candidates doing their own speaking in all political ads ... and i'd like to ensure that all viable candidates receive the exact same amount of time ... the days of outspending your opponent on media buys have got to end ...

2. During times of strife, a 40% vote of the congress could request a 100% population referendum

i'm not sure exactly what you mean by this ... but let me say, there are times i believe it is wrong to put certain issues before the voters ... i recently watched the Massachusetts constitutional convention ... the right-wingers showed absolute indignation for those who did not think the gay marriage issue should be put before the voters ... they made the usual charges that "a few activist judges" should not be able to legislate policy ... of course, the fact that these judges did their jobs by interpreting the Massachusetts constitution seems to have escaped them ...

constitutionally protected freedoms should not be subject to referendum ... imagine putting segregation on the ballot in Mississippi during the civil rights movement ... just because the voters of Mississippi would have chosen to support segration doesn't make it OK ... i appreciate your general point that voters need to be more involved in the process, but the limits of majority rule must always be considered ... not everything that's popular is always right ...

[sweetheart]

9. Why media blackouts and referendum reform

Media blackouts are used in the current financial markets to make sure that markets are not tampered with. Why this would not also be true to politics is not the obvious extension. A country that protects its financial markets and not its elections from media fraud, is foolish.

The media blackout would remove money from the election... as no amount of spending can spin the electorate in to a frienzy. It would terminate effective plutocracy.

All the points i've made refer to electoral reform. When media is blacked out, then dollars are not used to disadvantage, as i'm not buying the argument that 1 dollar = 1 voice, and the power to turn elections in a murdoch-faux perversion.

I accept that i am an infant in the world of electoral reform, but it strikes me that what i'm recommending would truly erase mass media from election tampering. The right to free speech is not the same as a corporate right to broadcast nationwide. The latter has public obligations.

My objective for all these changes, would be a return of the electoral system to "healthy". Proportional representation, ending corporate lobbying, by either supplying public party funding, or by ending all financial scams the republicans are using the circumvent the constitution.

Surely in a deadlock referendum like the bush-florida-2000, the election result was within statistical margins, and clearly questionable. This should have resulted in an immediate re-call election, mandated by law. I was trying to describe such a thing, ignorantly, and surely there is a better way. Were there a simple way to introduce multiparty coalition politics with a simple constitutional change, i'd pursue it, but rather focusing on the media-common, that freedom of thought explode the potential. Voting and elections have become disingenuous, parties so distort real voter views by clustering them together towards 2 partys, that the country is weakened. I think the founders may have found this an unexpected side effect... and did not consider that multiparty coalitions allow voters to be honest, and for voting blocks to be proportional..

[welshTerrier2]

11. third parties

thanks for clarifying some of your views ... i'm in total agreement with you that the two party system does not provide an adequate forum for the views of many Americans ... in a thread i started earlier today (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1130668#1130815) about the media, i wrote the following:


the fact that an honest debate on a wide variety issues has been stifled is as much a fault of democrats as it is of the press ... it seems to me that the only real solution to this "push towards the middle" would be the growth of multiple new parties ... and i don't see that happening anytime soon ... and for this year, at least, until bush is gone, that's probably a good thing ...

btw, i'm very supportive of proportional voting also ...

you still haven't sold me on your media blackout idea though ... i would feel pretty horrible if we did that and just a week or two before the election, some devastating fact about bush came to light ... i would not want my candidate to be unable to put the revelation before the voters ... i think your "ends" are excellent but your "means" are not ... it's not the timing of political ads that's the problem, it's other factors ... i'm in total agreement with you that we need to reform the rules of political advertising and most importantly, we need to address the perversions of big money in the political process ... but preventing candidates, especially good candidates, from getting their message out to the voters is hard to support ...

[sweetheart]

12. scratch blackout, and call it equal time on public airwaves

Fine, i accept that as flawed the blackout idea. Then replace that with equal time for all parties and representatives over 1% of the electorate on radio and television. Provide a similar editorial plurality for all public non-citizen communications.... so whist the new york times would be constrained to equal time/space, writers on DU would be protected by individual free speech.

[welshTerrier2]

13. love it !!!

thanks sweetheart ... we've arrived on the same page ...

keep up the good work !!

[buddhamama]

14. what do i stand for?

Human Rights. establish an universal code of Human Rights to be implemented and enforced throughout the World, many of my other issues would be addressed: Civil Rights, Freedom of/from Religion, anti-WTO/NAFTA,etc., Labor Rights, Environmental Rights and Medical Insurance for All.

A Living Wage must come to pass. Cost of living continues to increase but wages are stagnant. A father/mother shouldn't have to work multiple jobs for survival, or the privilege of living on the streets.

Media Reform. The reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

Finance i agree with on. Separation of Church and State is a given.

I am for a person's right to bear arms. surprise surprise by i too, bear arms.

Instant Run-off Voting.

[sweetheart]

15. Right and arms

After training in martial arts, a black belt can be said to be using deadly force by fighting. Just such a thing involves a lot of intense energy, and does not happen by pushing a switch, a lever or a trigger.

Between a BB-Gun and a 50 millimeter long range sniper rifle, is a range upon which we must define what constitutes civilian free ownership of arms. Few would agree to having civilian nukes, so even the free arms folks have limits they are willing to draw on what constitutes the arms one has a right to bear.

The right to drive a "car" deadly weapon, you need to be tested and licensed. Why a similar regimen is not applied to guns seems rather
odd. Then guns would have service records, and registration fees,
and someone interested in using guns needs to be licensed.

Let the weapons manufacturing profession have legal liability for damage done with their products. Charge the profession for the cost of the civil service costs of gun crime.

Someone must be responsible. My parents had several guns in the house the whole time i grew up. I knew where the ammunition was, and
i learned how to fire small arms to scope rifles. There was a clear understanding that weapons are just agents of intent, and that were the intent to kill, more subtle means work better. Knives work brilliantly. Poison darts, box cutters.

What i'm saying is that militia, in the context of the constitution's derivation, was an organized military unit of the state. I like the swiss idea, that people to serve in the military are given arms to keep for their lifetimes. Such people are well
trained in arms and care.

Such units certainly are the only ones who should be able to "own" large artillery, 2000 pound bombs and such. Then the zone of concern
becomes the large-ordnance to private-ordnance boundary. So the
whole argument really is, about what deadly weapons are to be supported by the public market. In that sense, i would apply the
same formula as with drugs legallization. Regulate, treat, embrace, tax and fairly educate a free market. Then regulate ammunition, and
stop arms proliferation by regulating gunpowder.

A wise government could move in both directions at the same time, towards less gun crime, and more responsibility. Then the federal firearms registry enforces the second amendment.

The libertarian-socialist would both legallize weapons, and yet achieve social justice through comprehensive light-touch economic market regulation.

How does the libertarian socialist consider the gun in their closet and what it does for them, vs, what the "other" gun is doing in a los angeles barrio, for gang protection. Public industries are criminally irresponsible to providing dangerous weapons of life destruction without any responsibility. Libertarians would let the
courts come down on the firearms industry for wrongful death suits. Given the reality that it is not time to dissolve the courts yet.

Socialists would want 0 gun crime deaths, through a comprehensive top-to-bottom policy base to end violent crime and its causes, props and agencies.

Ending the drugs war, combined wth regulating arms in a new "ATF"..
... the agency for Drugs and Weapons" This would be a regulatory agency with a little police focus, but collared to spend 90% of its budget on treatment/education, and 10% on market enforcement, none on advertizing. The agency is self funding from its own customs tax
levy, on market products, and its licensing of agents in the marketplace.

[Damn Ann the Man]

16. I'm surprised...

It's unusual for a libertarian socialist to support one of the greatest proponents of the Drug War and an organisation that tacitly endorses homophobia. (The UN)

[sweetheart]

17. Perhaps i'm incongruent

I freely admit to not totally understanding the political ideals in these long contested grounds.

I am for a total end to the drugs war, and anyone on DU would attest i chat that subject up. However this is achieved, is actually secondary to the primary government reform.

As i believe with free elections, matters of social justice will be sorted out in short order. The current policy body is instutionally incompetent. Letting democratic forces loose will benefit us all.

The universal declaration of human rights is my bloody home page on this forum, and i think they are wiser than anyone in the american government today.

So please explain my incogruence, and i will try to argue what i think libertarian socialism is, and between us the third party reader be the wiser.

We have the resources on this earth to feed all peoples, stop AIDS, stop harmful drugs addiction, to employ all people in useful trade at a living wage. Its not rocket science. Nature will do everything, just stop roping down the mustang. The wild horse is the strongest. Unleashing liberty is always a win. Abandoining markets regulation in a lighweight regulatory state is a mistake, however, given realpolitik. One thing at a time. The damage of industrial incompetence and military foolishness will take "undoing", and will turn gangrenous if left untreated.