[Cons] Preamble

I have been challenged to come up with a better constitution, and so I shall begin to do so. I'll be going over each amendment and article, giving critiques about what is flaw and what I think can be better.

I shall start with the preamble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So, the first thing I find important about this is that it is indeed THE PEOPLE of the United States coming together in this document...meaning that this nonsensical notion that states are somehow separate sovereign entities is only partially correct. That is, after the constitution, the several states surrendered their sovereignty TO the United States. Now, do I think they should be able to leave? Sure. There is nothing in the document that says that they can't but WHILE they are in the United States, States exist to serve the PEOPLE and not the other way around. Thus, when states and local geographical areas gain more power than the people IN those areas, there is something fundamentally wrong.

The articles of confederation were fundamentally flawed, and a more perfect union was needed. But what was done once, can be done again. The constitution outlines the procedure for this, but it was not created according to the articles of confederation. The constitution serves us, not the other way around. We can have a new constitution without requiring renegade states to join us in a desire to make a new one. It serves US not the other way around.

What is just about our society? Elements of humanity are treated as commodity....justice IS a commodity. If you are rich you have one legal system and if you are not, you get another...much more flawed system. Medicine, the health of its population has also been commoditized in the great Mollocian mouth of crony capitalism. The liberty they establish for their posterity was for their rich, white male property owning posterity.

Having said that, this preamble is not inherently bad. In the interest of some continuity, I honestly believe we could keep it the way it is. With one exception.

I would add this sentance, "This constitution shall serve its people, not the other way around. As soon as this document and the articles therein shall cease to uphold these principles for the majority, then a new constitution must be formed."

[Cons] Tyrannos Tempus and the Folly of Seperating Natural and Legal Rights

Imagine if you will, Ogg the caveman. Ogg is a very intelligent cave man. He is brilliant. He is the Einstein of cavemen. While we do not know who exactly it was that invented the wheel, the lever, the pulley and fire, let us assume that Ogg is responsible for all of these things for purposes of this exercise. How hard would it be for Ogg to imagine Quantum mechanics?

Oh, you could, if you went in a time machine, and spent a good amount of time talking with Ogg about the idea...you might be able to get him to accept the basics. But bear in mind you have no tools with you, no obvious instruments besides your ability to appear in a time machine and your ability to understand one another. Even assuming you were able to teach Oggs the basics of Quantum mechanics, is Ogg really going to be good at it? Without thoroughly studying the work of those who came before, the arguments and observations that took place, how could Ogg possibly grasp the finer nuances of super string theory or the incredibly complex equations of the building blocks of our universe?

And really, Ogg is still human. So even if Ogg could possibly accept all this impossibleness, despite his talent and intelligence, what are the real odds he would bring his own baggage to the question? Einstein, brilliant and ground breaking though he was, could simply not accept Quantum mechanics and many of the elements that his own theory promise about Black Holes and the like. Were Ogg greater than Einstein, maybe.

Newton once said, "I have only accomplished what I have by standing on the shoulders of giants." Our society progresses. Our understanding progresses.

And, most important of all, on his 40th birthday, Ogg declared himself King and his eldest descendant to be king for all time. I, I assure you, am the rightful descendant and heir of Ogg. I am your king. Bow before me.

What, you say? Not going to do it? But...but...why? Ogg was smart. Ogg was brilliant. Ogg declared the law and ALL of the other cavemen at the time threw their feces at him which, in their day, indicated that they accepted this social compact.

It's all nonsense. Every bit of it. You're no more going to accept me as your king based on the fact that I say I'm Ogg's descendant than I would accept you.

Indeed, even if I were to take you back in time and produce genealogy stating that not only am I the heir of Ogg, that Ogg was in fact brilliant, and that every living human was descended from these feces flinging cavemen would you be likely to accept me as your king.

WHY? After all, our anscestors swore to it. If I can provide proof, you are LEGALLY bound to be serfs and slaves unto me.

Oh. Well, perhaps we can use a dollop of common sense, shall we? The vast majority of people do not WANT me to be king, and even were I to provide proof positive that Ogg and I were all the things we claimed...so what? How could Ogg possibly know who we are as a society now, much less be fit to govern us? Indeed, the very act of flinging feces to indicate worthiness as a kingship is disgusting. I didn't fling feces for Ogg, and neither did you, so why should he have any bearing on what we do today in our society?

So what then is the difference between 20 million years and 200 years? What is the difference between Ogg and the Founding Fathers save a closer locality and time and a greater understanding of science. True, the founding fathers were brilliant and worthy men. So was Ogg. True, our ancestors voted to accept the constitution in a due and valid election....so did our distant ancestors that flung feces at Ogg.

There are several counter arguments to be made at this point, but I'll try to make them in the most relevant order.

The first of course is, the military. That is to say, Sergeant Valiant and his platoon of Very Scary Marines, or our Navy Seals or indeed most of the worthy members of our military have sworn to uphold the constitution, not the Word of Ogg, and since they're the ones with the nice shiny guns and the most powerful military on earth, they're going to listen to what the President says, not Me, rightful ruler of us all by Declaration of Ogg.

To which I reply...I didn't vote for the constitution. I voted for our president because he was the least worst choice. I was born a citizen but I, personally, find no more relevance to men who lived 200 years ago than Ogg does. Ogg was worthy, so were the founding fathers. Worthiness does not mean relevance.

But let us be clear...the REASON I am not declared king has nothing to do with the arguements being made but because those with the power to enforce the desires of themselves and the rest of society BELIEVE IT TO BE SO. The constitution is an idea, nothing more. On a practical level, blessed with supernatural powers of argument, I could in one in a quadrillion possible universes convince people that I, as rightful heir of Ogg am the true king of us all and that they should follow me, and because they believed me, I WOULD BE KING.

This is all insane. But it is also very clearly reasoned. Our laws are laws because we believe them to be laws. Our constitution is relevant because we believe it to be relevant. And we are only restricted by it because we believe ourselves to be restricted by it.

Men who died, who are all dead, from 200 years ago, have only slightly more understanding of our society than Ogg. More importantly, they had ideas that we would consider utterly repugnant today; sexism, racism, classism, elitism, and in some case theological superiority. Some of them really did believe that their particular brand of Protestantism was superior to all others and wanted to establish their particular brand of religion as the founding religion. Thankfully, the majority of them did not.

But we have another church. This church is the Church of the Constitution. The constitution is both a blue print for our society and a symbol. As a blueprint, it is OK, though we could do worse. As a symbol it is held as important, though it is my personal observation that conservatives tend to revere it as a symbol more than liberals, who view the declaration of independence with a bit more reverence. This is purely anecdotal, but it is relevant in one capacity....

In the middle ages, church theologians argued how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. This was very serious to them, because it determined the nature of angels, the nature of god, and potentially the nature of matter itself. And yet, even were one to assume that God and Angel's existed, would not their existence be independent of that as constructed by the monks? If God and angels really wanted the monks to know, why not simply tell them? If five angels could dance on the head of a pin as compared to six...how MUCH of a difference would this make? Since the monks could not really affect this one way or another...it was to a certain degree mental masturbation.

Arguing over an interpretation of the Bible or the Koran or the Torah is kind of the same thing. God has His own interpretation but doesn't seem to see fit to tell people. And yet people will argue. Why? Well, perhaps because in part if they can convince enough people that they are right, they can get people to follow their way of thinking. But on a practical level are they right, or simply more skilled in convincing others of their beliefs?

If the constitution as symbol is relevant to us only because we believe it to be relevant (as compared to the word of Ogg) so then are the many sophistries of the church of the constitution so much wind if we can decide that the constitution isn't really relevant to us.

Which is why I argue against it. If the constitution, at its root, is inherently flawed, why should we be bound to it. I, as a follower of Christ, don't really care what your interpretation of the Koran is. Now, if I'm in Saudi Arabia, and you're pointing a gun at me, then to the extent I am willing to put up with not being shot, your will matters. So the interpretations of the Koran matter about who is pointing the guns at whom based on how they can persuade others, but the Koran is the Koran and at least to me, it is not my scripture. But if you are pointing a gun at me, then it is relevant but only to the extent that you are controlling my actions through force. Your arguments about what it means are only relevant to the degree to which I accept it as a symbol.

So too, then, as a society, are the arguments of the adherents of the church of the constitution relevant only to the degree to which we accept the validity of the symbol of the constitution. If enough of us cease to recognize this as a symbol, then sure as the sun shall rise in the morning, it shall be us telling the church of the constitution what we want our society to be, rather than the other way around.

This is not to insult Ogg, the Koran or the founding fathers. This is just a practical reality. Until God sends Angels to make us behave in a particular way, tis the folks with guns that make the rules as they are enforced.

Which is why silly columns like this one are so silly. You talk about Calvinball or some other rules, but you're just arguing different points about the Doctrine of your holy constitution. The pristine holy constitution as pictured by the Holy Constitution does not exist. It is a platonic construct in their minds, and since they are human minds, constitution purists today will interpret the document differently than purists tomorrow. The meaning of the words will change as will those who interpret them. On a practical level, adherents to the church of the constitution really usually invoke it to deny us our rights as defined by the morays of our modern society. A right is what we say it is. A moray is what we say it is.

Men two hundred years ago have no more moral authority over us than Ogg. To say otherwise is to lie.

Now if you are going to argue that we should honor it for stability's sake, I've already covered that point here. A social contract is best made by the living members of that society. A flexible document is a more stable document and prevents the tyranny of the minority as exercised by the current zealots of the church of the constitution from denying us the things we want and that make sense. It isn't that liberal ideas can't be made to work on a practical level...look at Europe. It is simply that some regions of our country want to use the constitution as an excuse to keep their outdated ways of thinking in charge.

Fine. Get rid of the constitution if that's the case. It's a flawed symbol anyway since the stink of slavery is written into its very fabric. Talk about 'self-evident truths'....can anyone really honestly expect us to believe owning another human being against their will is morally acceptable? I find it far more plausible that Ogg would find the idea abhorrent, don't you? Especially if we asked Ogg to be a slave?

BSDM events might have folks volunteering as slaves, but outside of that, we don't have many people volunteering for the job, especially rich, white southern property owning Christian males. That being the case, I think we can agree that slavery is not only evil, but that symbolically, anything that apologizes for it or accommodates it is morally tainted.

Like the United States Constitution.

Let us throw off the chains of the past and build something better. We can do better. We must do better. And if we must, expel the region that insists on being a chain, as it has for the last two hundred years, on improving our country and let them have their state established religion, the Immaculate Shrine of the United States Constitution...a document that is meant to serve the people, instead of the other way around.

[Phil] The Hundred Year Rule

I am exploring the idea a simple 100 year rule regarding claims to land. The world is full of ancient cultures, and in many places you can have as many as 10-20 different groups claiming the same territory, some with a claim that goes back centuries or even millennia. But most of these people took the land from someone else, and in some cases go to ridiculous lengths to doctor or obscure science by stating otherwise. There is *NO* group of humanity that has some noble peace like spirit that has not engaged in war of one kind or another, either within their group or with outside groups. It might not be war as we recognize it, but be assured, they've taken up arms and they've killed to maintain their tribal area.

The problem with our species is that our greatest gift, language and symbolic recognition, is also our greatest curse. Magic, mythology and stories are, to me, the best part about being human. But our history should work for us, not the other way around. In law, there is a reason for a statute of limitations. People can change, and also there is a finite amount of willpower to enforce things, so why go after a crime that no one cares about anymore? Or at least has no logical reason to care about?

But of course things are more complicated than that. To begin with, following the metaphor, there are certain crimes which are never forgiven or forgotten; like murder or bank robbery, both due to their seriousness, as well as the fact that if there was a statute of limitations for crimes such as these, people would be more likely to commit them and simply play the long game to wait them out. Conversely, genocide is a crime that should never be forgotten, nor should forced migrations.

Moreover, are we going to forget important dates of the past? One culture's holiday and independence can be another's bitter defeat about lost territory. So long as 'the founder of the nation' is honored for their heroic deeds, the baggage of their actions in the past are going to cause problems. People are not going to forget their history easily, and indeed in some cases, their entire culture is defined by events in ancient times.

I am not proposing that we forget history, only that we forgive most of it with regards to territory. But I think the real key to this is self-determination by the people on the land, who are actually living there. This doesn't solve all problems, but it eliminates a lot of gray areas. For example, the real reason I've been considering this is the absolutely ridiculous claims by Argentina against the Falkland islands. Argentina hasn't had anyone from their nation living on these islands in nearly 150+ years but they're making a big political deal about them, and because of international politics, south America is rallying around them. Well then why isn't Argentina returning the land they occupy to its indigenous populations and moving back to Spain? You could make the same claim against the indigenous populations and the bearing straight, but they didn't keep written records. Argentina's claim of 'imperialism' is silly. Its not because the UK wasn't an imperial power...it's because Argentina itself was created as part of the imperial legacy of Spain. Yes, they fought for independence...but if the Falkland islands had fought against Spain and the UK would they claim the land still? Is self-determination only valid if they want independence?

This gets even more complicated, but I believe is still applicable in places like Scotland or Quebec. The concept of the nation state requires coherence, but if a part of a territory wants independence, and seeks it for more than a century, it is foolish not to grant it to them. Let the American South have a vote, once and for all, if they truly want independence, and if they do, let them go. If not then let them stay in the country for another hundred years. Let the reservations in the United States be TRUE independent nations instead of museums for First Nation cultures that are EVEN NOW still exploited by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and corrupt western state governments.

Of course, the counter balance to this is...theft of land once this rule is implemented, against the will of the people that live there is verboten. It means that the Israeli settlements stop. It means that the ones that are there are either frozen or dealt with. Ancient claims of the holy land are based on a religion, and religion should not affect governmental policy. Now, realistically is it possible to keep it out? Of course not. Islam is on the rise in countries which are majority members of that faith, and they seem in the mood to make Theocracies or Theocracy Lite. Well, I consider the idea foolish, but it certainly isn't worth sending an army to stop them. However, the majority of the world's secular governments have no reason to recognize claims that are more than a hundred years old.

It’s a fairly simply policy, but it can work both ways. Let the people living on the ground determine what nation they belong to. Let the people using force to move people around stop it. Make it unrewarded. After that, another vote takes place in another 100 years.

What about current claims? What about Yugoslavia and Kirkuk and have a dozen knots around the world? You solve them like you solve any knot...one link at a time. It means that anywhere there is peace and stability now, all people there get a plebiscite, a vote...Scotland, Quebec, the American South...they get a vote and a chance to form their own nation, and the world recognizes that. And all of the places still under stress have a choice...either renounce their claims or keep fighting their own wars, but be ignored by the world without recognition or trade until the parties involved can settle it in a way that they all agree to. It means that all the parties in Kirkuk or Israel have to BOTH agree to a peace or NONE of them get it and none of them get trade.

Do I expect this to happen? No. But I find it a better solution than what we currently have. I'm certainly open to better suggestions, but until we have one world government, the nation state should be determined by people that WANT to live in it, rather than order imposed by one group over another. Technology and sociological advances now allow both large and small states to be possible. And in cases where an accommodation cannot be found, let paid migration take place. Let there be a place for all in a place they can accept, or at least the closest they can.

Utopian, I know. But worth consideration...

Especially since it would finally shut Argentina up about the Falklands. I'm sorry, 'Las Malvinas'.

[Rant] Are Conservatives Demons?

[Fixed some spelling errors, otherwise kept as is.]

Are Conservatives Demons?

The question seems both insulting and pointless, but it is merited of consideration for two points:

a) A counter argument against the ludicrous conservative idea that separation of church and state is not in the constitution.

b) A highlight about the absolute pointless of inserting religious arguments into policies of secular conservations.

Point a is merited because the arguments for separation are sound. First, the word, 'God' or 'Divine' appear in no way in the constitution, but 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is inherently plain. How could you fail to understand 'if it has to do wish establishing religion, congress shall not do it?' It is a hell of a lot clearer than 'a well-regulated militia.' Thus, congress shall take no action by law that promotes one religion over another. Therefore all actions MUST have a secular basis in argument else they are unconstitutional. To argue anything else requires convoluted logic in the extreme. To show an example of this convoluted logic, I am thus positing that all conservatives are demons.

Point b is served by my argument below.

Now, first, let us establish some definitions, shall we?

By conservative I mean American conservatives who self-identify themselves as such, but more specifically the socially and fiscally conservative who are also religious of the monotheistic variety. If you are merely socially conservative or fiscally conservative or religious but not of a monotheistic religion, this need not apply to you.

Now let us establish the word, "demon."

Dictionary.com establishes demons as:

1. an evil spirit; devil or fiend.

**In monotheistic religions, humans have spirit. Therefore if that spirit is evil, the body is inhabited by a demon.

2. an evil passion or influence.

**Conservatives are very passionate. Their passions tend toward evil. That makes them demons.

3. a person considered extremely wicked, evil, or cruel.

**It is rational to consider conservatives extremely wicked, evil or cruel people, and therefore demons.

4. a person with great energy, drive, etc.: He's a demon for work.

**Relevant in theory but I shall not persue this definition.

5. a person, especially a child, who is very mischievous: His younger son is a real little demon.

**See comment on #4.

Now, are not demons the servants of Satan? Especially if we follow the modern post christianist interpretation of the afterlife in which those who are righteous who go to heaven become angels in the servants of God. If angels are servants of God, and demons are the servants of the devil, or fallen angels, it stands therefore that those who are bound to hell are demons and thus servants of the devil.

Following this logic, it only needs serve that we define conservatives (as defined above) as evil.

Evil has many definitions, but theologically, the most relevant definition is 'failure to obey the word of God.'

Now, man is imperfect, and theologically speaking it is not our place to judge, but from a philosophical perspective and also for reasons of this exercise in thought, we must consider the broad parameters of what makes a person evil, even if it is not (theologically) our place to say any specific person is evil. It is still reasonable to call a particular belief or set of beliefs evil, else, how are we to have discernment from right or wrong? We must be able to judge evil actions from good, because we are, theologically, judged based on our sin, and how unjust would it be to condemn us for sin without the capacity to discern right from wrong? Is this not the basis of most mainstream monotheist thought?

Let us then consider, it is logical to understand that there are sins of a hierarchical nature, that is, some sins are greater than others. Therefore sin should be judged according to the severity of the law transgressed.

What are then the commandments?

Well, they vary by religion, but let us examine them from a Christian filter.

1) Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might mind and strength.

2) Love thy neighboor.

So, shall we then determine whether conservatives love God and their neighbor?

I propose that a word for word comparison with conservative politicians will indicate that they talk more on the house floor about fiscal matters than matters of the heart.

Who is mammon? Why the devil.

Who advocates that money is speech? Conservatives.

Who therefore says that human lives are commodities to be bartered back and forth? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who values the sacred market, the sacred property rights and the sacred contract more than compassion for the weak? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who mocks empathy (love) in judicial appointments? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who fails even the most basic test of government much less basic humanity in the form of disaster relief? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who urges torture of their enemies? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who wants to condemn women to virtual slavery in their own bodies despite cures given by God Given Truth and Science that will prevent them from needing to have abortions? Conservatives. Servants of the Devil.

Who argues against Science, the discovery of truth and God's creation? Conservatives. Servants of the Devil.

Who lies with impunity and condemns not falsehood? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who believes that one man is above another and seeks not to emulate God, who is not a respecter of persons but view all men with equal love? Conservatives. Servants of the Devil. [Conservatives favor the electoral college which gives people in red states more votes than people in blue states.]

Who places more value in soulless, devil [mammon] created automatons (Corporations) than they do in actual people? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

I could go on like this all day. Some of the arguments here are convoluted at best, but that was the point of this exercise, to show how Conservatives take even the most basic test of religion; compassion for the weak, and twist their own religions in knots trying to justify their behavior. They accept their own interpretations of the constitution that bend over backwards to make them work but ignore plain readings that clearly favor liberal causes and ideas. Their faith in their God and therefore their religion is so weak, that they feel the need for the validation of the State, despite repeated advocation to avoid mixing the two in the old testament, with the prohibitions against Kings and in the new testament where what is Caesar’s is to be Rendered unto Caesar.

Conservatism, especially American Conservatism is a lie and a hypocritical farce at best.

[Phil] Self Evident Truth

Self interest is a requirement for an enduring change to take place. History shows that humanity will adopt radically different ideas, but in my examination thereof, I have yet to find one that does not include some kind of self evident benefit to the Sline population, at least a benefit that is perceived by the Sline, as compared to an actual benefit. I think a few of these might include mass education, opposition to slavery and agriculture. Surely, that seems like a wide range but I choose such for a reason.

Slavery, or the ownership of human beings, had been acceptable for the VAST majority of the human experience. While the most moral among us opposed this, the Sline population tended to either accept or reject the concept based on their personal experience with slavery or the policy selected by their society's elite. The struggle was long and bitter, but it was eventually overcome. That is not to say that slavery no longer exists, but rather, the predominant view point is now such that the majority of the world's population regards a human being as something more than a commodity that can be bought and traded. With that acknowledgement must come an implicit acknowledgement that all human beings have a certain level of dignity and the right to liberty. This might seem obvious, but the double think of confederate plantationists at the phrase, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are equally endowed by their creator with certain rights." Ignoring the religious overtones, this phrase seemed self evident. At a certain level, there is an inherent worth in all human beings. But I argue that this would not have taken root among the Sline population if the average joe could not think to himself, "Would I want to be a slave?" And if the answer is a resounding 'no!' then it becomes much easier to reject the idea and concept all together.

Many utopian or modern philosophies have died at birth, or failed to get out of the gate because of the ability to appeal to the Sline population. Some gain a slow steady increase, but are indeed self evident. Case in point, Democracy. Democracy has slowly increased, rather than the opposite. Governments have to take greater and greater steps to oppress their people, because the average Sline can ask, "Why does my leader know better than I how to govern?" As the internet, the printing press, and other forms of mass communication enlighten the populace and inform us of the very human flaws of our leaders, this basic question is asked. Democracy is not a 'western' idea, it is a fundamentally basic one....that anyone of a certain minimally basic function should have a say in how things are done in the affairs of state, and to say otherwise demands extraordinary proof.

Education is also an easy idea to spread. Knowledge is power, and as that power becomes easier for all to obtain, they can see how it opens doors for them. Enlightenment and self enlightenment become more and more important. It is an idea that is appealing to all, because the average Sline can think to himself, "I don't want to be an ignorant slob." Of course, of late, this once self evident principal has come under attack. Slines think, "I don't want to question my religion..." or "My political philosophy is more important to me than the truth." But even such poor deluded souls still see the importance of literacy to understand their own self told lies as justified by the wise of the world. One can, after all, delude one's self better, when you can twist science or philosophy to say what it never intended. How much more then, of those who actually desire enlightenment and truth, is the value of knowledge self evident. Knowledge is still valued, even if truth no longer is....if it ever really was.

Agriculture might have been the first very radical change our society made. But its value to our lives is evident. Can you imagine our planet supporting 8 billion people if we were all hunter/gatherers?

Thus, any change, any idea or political philosophy, must appeal to even the most basic of our number. Communism, in its infant state, appealed to the masses because they saw the injustices of an elite few who took the bounty of the earth with a disproportionate and unnecessary reward. The arguement to its counter took the ruination of half the world under corruption and stagnation opposed by the flowering in a 20th century technological utopia (comparitively speaking.) Yet even now, in the shadows of the sky rises of our mighty fortresses of lucre, those at the bottom of the ziggaraut grow uneasy. Even the most basic of us, save those enthralled to lies they tell to ensure their racial superiority or self deceptive belief they shall enter the elite, even those most base among us can see that the system as designed benefits the few, rather than the many. But credible alternatives are...lacking...something.

The Democrats seem to believe only half of the things they say, so ready are they to compromise their own beliefs at the drop of a hat. They are changing, adapting to the parade of comforting lies, slowly, but reluctantly, the elder of their number being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern day. The old argument that Joe Sline might ask, "Why should I vote for you?" Is not as evident as it once was. Past victories are taken for granted. They ask, "What have you done for me lately?"

And the counter argument, the ability to spin lies is also not appealing to the masses. Republicans retain grip on a segment of power by reinventing the truth every six minutes, but it is as vapid and hollow as ever. People who do not have a reason to believe a lie, seldom embrace it for long. The Republican party is less popular than it has been in generations, because Joe Sline looks at the Republicans and says, "Why should only the rich benefit from our system?" Arguements about soviet russia and socialism and communism begin to ring hollow in the echo of their reaganesque 'victory' against the corrupt and fallen leviantan. Again the question comes, "What have you done for me lately?"

Libertarianism is on the rise, but is becoming more and more difficult to see a difference with Republicanism. Every philosophy has its lies and falsehoods, but in their desperation for an identity, the Republicans, through the Tea Party have trumped up the Austrian school of economics, ignoring empiracle data entirely. The base arguement of 'we're going broke' and 'don't tax me' sound wonderful until they meet the practical reality of starving children and crashing economies. Moreover, the basic idea of humans as commodities is simply unacceptable. People are ceasing to believe the European idea of "dignity" is a lie. They see this because it is self evident, but the importance of the individual experience is paramount in American culture.

How then, does one find a structure that addresses the individual but also dignity?

Some of these answers I have sought, and some I have found. But I will tell you that it will not be found in comforting lies, and it will never be found in making individual worth less than zero by consigning all philosophies one does not agree with to the 'other' as 'the state'....

A third axiom is needed....commodity vs dignity. A libertarianism that acknowledges dignity and the right of the majority to form a state is needed...but not readily accepted. The time is ripe for a chance of direction, the question is who will lead and who will follow. Interesting times indeed.

[Mock] Republicans and the Village Media Are Idiots

I have promised that politically I'll save my sarcasm for non facebook posts.

No problem.

Whose a special special special special special super SMART party? Yes, its the smaaaaaaaaaaart Republicans.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Smart.

Such smart questions from the village media. Which asks the same questions 14 times. Because they are stupid.

Maybe 15 will make them get it?

[Phil] A Fallow Commonwealth

Puerto Rico recently voted for statehood. Of course, with the do nothing, know nothing congress we currently have (especially in the house of representatives) this means nothing. Government can't do much of anything right now, especially something new, never mind the fact that Puerto Rico might actually add a Democratic state to the union, so God Forbid we actually add another state to the Disunited States of America. Nonsense, all of it.

However, since I do want to avoid a second civil war, and I just don't think most people have the stomach for Excision , I think that the Puerto Rico situation might offer another middle ground. After Obama won, Secession petitions were filed in every state of the union, but the former confederate states got some of the highest amounts. So, the problem with secession is that it allows local areas to have control over the central government, which is the primary reason Lincoln was opposed to it. But the truth of the matter is, that this country has a long and storied tradition of holding territory that is not fully incorporated into the United States of America.

There are reservations (which are in theory soveriegn nations but in practice are abused by both federal and state governments, which is particularly ironic since if they are separate nations states shouldn't be able to touch them. At all. And yet states still have some influence in Indian territory). We have administered areas which are essentially colonies (like Guam or the Virgin Islands) and then we have a unique situation with Puerto Rico which is a common wealth, whose citizens get the protection of the US military and some basic benefits like Social Security and Medicare, without the ability to vote. They do not, however, pay federal income taxes.

Given how anti tax Red States are at the moment, I'm moderately certain that they would leap at the chance to stop paying Federal Income tax in exchange for their representation in Presidential Election and the Congress. Granted, social conservatives have a need to control a woman's body at all costs, but fiscal conversatives and Ron Paul Republicans seem to care about the size and influence of government more than they do about imposing their values on the rest of the nation. They still LIKE imposing their version of crony capitalism on the nation but taxes seem more important. So why not amend the constitution to give states the ability to go Commonwealth like Puerto Rico for several years at a time before they get another referrendum?

It's a win win proposition. The Red States pay less taxes, and the Blue States get to pass government reforms without the Red States interfering in everything that they do. Moreover, it is not as permanent as excision, because some red states are slowly becoming blue states due to demographics changes.

Hell, I think an even better slution is to allow the Red States to set just how much federal service their going to get. They want anything but basic defense from the military? They have to pay taxes. They will, of course, have to generate enough income to pay for their share of the national debt. That doesn't go away, especially given how our interest has increased due to their playing games with our credit rating, but they could still save a lot of money this way. Let them do what they've always dreamed...pay full price for medicare and medicaide with state generated revenue. Bear in mind that most of these states are a net loss anyway, and a simple condition that the states must allow federal taxation to be provided at par for ANY federal services (ie the states can raise the money any way they like, but they must be revenue neutral for any federal services provided) and I think they'd leap at the chance. Plus it would be a very education experience for the people in these states. There a few net revenue positive red states, but not many. It also fulfills the concern of strategic military necessity (ie, Fly Over country pretty much unites the more populated blue states and is necessary as a logistics pathway for defense of the country).

I know this sounds harsh, but

a) It would work. I sincerely believe that most red states would happily trade their vote in the congress and for the president rather than pay federal taxes.

b) It makes them prove that their theory of small governments will actually work.

c) It still allows freedom of movement for citizens, such that people stuck in a Red State can still leave for government services.

d) It helps make Red States more revenue neutral instead of being financial drains because corporations will set up shop their to take advantage of people that like to let themselves be exploited, thus boosting their income, thus improving their tax base, thus making them less of a drain on the rest of the country once (if ever) they decide to become a voting state again.

e) It does reinforce the idea that states have SOME level of sovereignty.

f) It actually encourages neofederalism because red states would LOVE to allow blue cities trapped in their borders to still state in the US in exchange for being able to stop paying income taxes. This could permanently free many imprisoned cities from Red influence like New York, Atlanta and Chicago.

g) It is a better alternative than civil war, which is what I see as a likely occurance if these desperate reality challenged people continue to lose influence and retain any power with increasing delusion and increasingly desperate measures like voter suppression and gerrymandered districts.