How do feel about Canada, USA, and Mexico forming a union (similar to the European Union)?

Where will us Americans expatriate to then?
Bad idea, likely to happen (1984 style), more mess, wont improve things for anyone, especially Canadians. Might improve economic position of both US and Mexican wealthy at further expense to US and Mexican poor.

I'm opposed to any union, treaty, of agreement that involves Mexico. I think the NAFTA is bullcrap, I think we need to set fire to the trucks coming in from Mexico. Burn them where ever we find them. We need to fence off the borders and work on homeland security. Deport anyone found in the United States illegally. Put military troops along the borders with live ammunition to stop the flow of people who hate us drifting in like the wind. Then stop shoving our policies down the throats of countries half way around the world who hate us. Let the world know, "Don't fudge with the US or Canada or we'll turn your craphole country into a nuclear test range."

I'll have to read the link for a more intelligent reply, but until then....
A Canadian, a Mexican and a redneck walk into a bar...

I don't know whether it's a good idea or not, but I don't like it. I guess it's kind of like NAFTA just encompassing other things. I was always against European Union - they're the reason why I get riped off every time I go to Europe.

I don't mind the States, they're very culturally similar to Canada, but Mexico???

It is evil. I'm against it. We must not lose our sovereignty.

I've heard a lot of people complaining about this, but no evidence that such a thing is happening. Even if it was, all the opposition seems to be based on thinly veiled racism and/or nationalism. Anyway, true or not I don't see it happening. Haven't we fudgeed Mexico enough?

I would have to know a lot more about it and what effects it would have before I could feel one way or the other about it.

Who do you think's drafting the thing? More us than anyone else. By us though, that's the global businesses which got their start here, and not anyone who believes in informed voting on matters.

Btw, it just dawns on me that your ideal presidential candidate (amongst those running) would probably be Dennis Kucinich, even though he's a democrat, and I suspect you're a republican. He's all for getting americans back to work for the benefit of americans. He also one of a mere handful of congressmen interested in restoring constitutional rights.

I'm sorry Mike Gravel dropped out. He's the first president since Eisenhower(?) to bring up that unnecessary wars will continue to happen as long as the defense indusry profits from it.

I wouldn't exactly call it evil. It's merely more of the same sort of greed by those at the top which happens here already. It's not unlike Bush buying So. Americas largest water aquifer, or giving his father's Canadian company free gold mining rights to US lands.

> I'm opposed to any union, treaty, of agreement
> that involves Mexico. I think the NAFTA is bullcrap,
> I think we need to set fire to the trucks coming
> in from Mexico. Burn them where ever we find them.
> We need to fence off the borders and work on homeland
> security. Deport anyone found in the United States
> illegally. Put military troops along the borders
> with live ammunition to stop the flow of people
> who hate us drifting in like the wind. Then stop
> shoving our policies down the throats of countries
> half way around the world who hate us. Let the
> world know, "Don't fudge with the US or Canada
> or we'll turn your craphole country into a nuclear
> test range."

In other words, you want to fix the immigration problem by doing everything EXCEPT the stuff that could actually work? I take it you're a Republican then.

Here's how you fix immigration. First, stop being a racist douchebag. 2, stop being a nationalist douchebag. 3, get rid of NAFTA. 4, stop supporting crooked politicans and business men in Mexico. 5, stop selling Mexico food that they have the land to grow themselves. That's what caused their agriculture community to collapse causing the farmers to migrate up here. 5, punish the EMPLOYERS who hire illegals. 6, if they pay taxes and follow the local laws, allow a path to citizenship for those who may want to stay anyway even after Mexico has gotten back it's own feet (after over a century of us knocking them down). They should have to pay a fine for illegally crossing the border, but we can certainly cut the Coyotes out of the picture. Lastly, a fence won't work, it's a waste of money that could be better spent on improving infrastructure.

i think it is a bad idea because it hasn't been discussed very openly and it is something that the bushies have agreed to without any public discussion, congressional discussion or public forum.

nicely said frosty

It would help the economies and securities of all 3 countries (not by much) and it be nice to have something to balance out China and the EU.

As for the "rich elites" argument, its partially true. Look, the abolition of slavery was mostly pushed by rich elites without caring what the working class thought and look how that turned out.

I'm unaffected.

I could maybe see Canada and the U.S. but leave Mexico out. We need to be shoving Mexico down and having them take their illegals back and not getting closer with them.

I hope it won't happen...

Hmmm... I wonder what inspired Bill to create this survey.

maybe his greencard is ready to expire???

I think it's a good idea, since these separate countries are so diverse from each other it could be beneficial.

I'm not a republican, I agree with you, stop supporting politicians, the people need to take the country back from the professional politicians, we need people to do the work we won't do, but those people need to be paid a fair wage, the people who hire illegals and pay substandard wages need to be put in federal prison and forced to work in the fields and live in over crowded crapholes. I find it difficult to fault people trying to escape oppressed nations for a better life. It pisses me off that people have to live in such crapty conditions and be hungry in a country were over eating is a common problem.

> I'm not a republican, I agree with you, stop supporting politicians,
> the people need to take the country back from the professional politicians,
> we need people to do the work we won't do, but those people need to
> be paid a fair wage, the people who hire illegals and pay substandard
> wages need to be put in federal prison and forced to work in the fields
> and live in over crowded crapholes. I find it difficult to fault people
> trying to escape oppressed nations for a better life. It pisses me
> off that people have to live in such crapty conditions and be hungry
> in a country were over eating is a common problem.

It's ironic to think that besides over eating; we also often dump our surplus... and people around the world are going hungry.

I think it will happen eventually. I think it will be good for the US at a later date. If I were Canadian I'd not like the idea at all. Mexico would be the opposite.

I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, and I don't really feel anything about it either way.

It sounds fun but don't ask me for any political advice.

I do not believe this will ever happen in my lifetime dream on

> Where will us Americans expatriate to then?
> Bad idea, likely to happen (1984 style), more mess, wont improve things
> for anyone, especially Canadians. Might improve economic position
> of both US and Mexican wealthy at further expense to US and Mexican
> poor.

Sounds like somebody is dreaming and never in my life will this happen

> I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, and I don't really feel
> anything about it either way.

The day this happens a meteorite will hit the earth and kill us all

Right on Otter, right fudging on. The magic word for today is: privatization. That's what is killing Mexico for all but the wealthy, who respond to their growing poor population by telling them to go to the U.S. If it were any other country in the world doing that, we'd call it a form of ethnic cleansing, but because U.S. corporations are reaping financial benefits from it, they just try to distract you by fueling racism and encouraging the spreading of stereotypes. And if you doubt that such tactics are sadly effective, look at LJD. She's bought it hook line and sinker.

What about the Euro? What about McDonalds restauraunts in India and China? It's as inevitable as the first prehistoric homesteads becoming villages. In a sense, it's already happened to some extent.

American business people have been setting up factories in Mexico for 30 years now just like New Yorkers might have set up factories in New Jersey 80 years ago. Since that time federal laws have userped state laws. Now, for some 60 years the WTO, WMF, and various international protocols control the behavior of entire nations. Already these protocols are determining things like food labeling and import restrictions in most 1st world nations. The US has a habit of drafting international law and not abiding by it itself though. This is gradually shifting though. The more this happens, the less significtant state and national borders become.

Just what is it that you think will never happen?

I think you shouldn't bring up others, or you risk misrepresenting them. You're mixing two paradigms, that of freely opening the poor to convenient exploitation (here without benefits), and racism. She is against such trade plans, and is merely a patriotic religious sovereign racist (if I'm not misrepresenting her as well). She may buy their racist ideology cover story, but she's not buying their underlying globalist business intentions.

60's style revolution, trying to fight the 'other side' has already failed this time around. The most promising hope I see on the horizon is a new paradgm of populist revolution in which both sides come together on common ground, recognizing they have both been bamboozled.

Imagine that you and LJD represent two halves of american ideological beliefs, 50/50. As long as the two of you believe you are polarized, your hands are both tied with each other while the administration does what it wants. Now imagine instead that you and her got together and figured out that you actually had many common complaints and beliefs about public rights (even though you abhor the rest of what she believes), then marched together up the steps of the administration asking for change in those matters. It's one thing for them to hide behind their door and claim that half of america supports them, and another to defy unanimous objection.

If you can't achieve this on an interpersonal level within your close control, there's little hope of achieving this on a national level, leaving us indefinitely stuck with the status quo, unchecked un-publicly-guided government.

Just the other day I was suggesting that if she reads the bottom line, the brass tacks, that she would find that Dennis Kucinich actually best fits her hopes for this country, as well as my own, coming from different ideological attitudes. She hasn't responded yet, but hopefully she'll give it serious consideration.

I'm thinking to ask how you feel about libertarianism (which I think would be dreadful in light of unchecked global enterprise) but I'll save that discussion for it's own survey. Aspects of forms of it may appeal to both you and LJD.

> Right on Otter, right fudging on. The magic word for today is: privatization.

Well, I am undecided how I feel about privatization. On one hand, undeinabily its generally a more efficient than government run, but on the other hand some industries should be run by the government (police, military, etc). I just don't see why farming should be one of them (they're privatized in the US and it works just fine).


> That's what is killing Mexico for all but the wealthy, who respond
> to their growing poor population by telling them to go to the U.S.

So what would be your solution, short of a US sponsored coop to overthrow the corrupt Mexican officials? I am asking an honest question here?



> If it were any other country in the world doing that, we'd call it
> a form of ethnic cleansing, but because U.S. corporations are reaping
> financial benefits from it,

I am not sure why it wouldn't just be easier for the US corporations to move to Mexico. Their farm land and climate is probably even better than the one over here anyway. In a free market, it would be more efficient to just let them grow their own food instead of importing it from here (most of it grown by them anyway). Lets see here, option one: grow your own food in a country which has better farm land with your own people, or b, import it from a country whose farm land isn't as good with your own people who waste a lot of effort into crossing the border. Something doesn't add up. I don't see why the US corporations can't just move to Mexico and exploit the cheap labor over there and then import the stuff into the US, instead of going through the trouble of risking large fines by hiring the same people who snuck to the US.



>they just try to distract you by fueling
> racism and encouraging the spreading of stereotypes.

I don't quite get how the said greedy corporations would benefit from the racism. Wouldn't it be in their best interest for there to be less racism, so that the voters wouldn't push laws keeping their cheep labor from coming in? Pushing for more racism would be counterproductive to their interests.

It seems like a good idea to me. I don't really understand why people are generally against it.

One reason I'd be against such a union is that it is a move towards a more centralized and uniform society, to quote another survey. I don't think that's a good idea.

The other reason is that I don't think we'd end up with US civil rights, Mexican food, and Canadian foreign policy. I think we'd more likely end up with Mexican civil rights, US foreign policy, and Canadian food.

I guess I just have a more optimistic view of it. I'm not sure why.

I think it would give us (as a whole) easier, more natural to borders. The internal borders between the 3 of us are essentially impossible to defend. But, the ocean, arctic, and Mexico's small strip border with Central America all seem more reasonable.

Using the same currency would make trade/business a lot easier.

Eliminating customs between us would be appreciated too (mail between US/Canada can be such a pain in the ass). But, also tariffs and other crap could be removed. Free trade is a good thing, anything else is governmental market manipulation.

It seems like it could allow us to get over the whole Mexican migrant worker issues we're struggling with (illogically, in my opinion). Really, I think Mexico could be helped greatly by the union and that ultimately, that would help the US as well, since Mexico's problems tend to spill-over into the US.

But, yeah, the whole centralized and uniform thing is a bit scary. Though, it's fairly abstract concern. If I reverse things and instead consider separating every US state and Canadian/Mexican province into their own country, with individual borders, customs, and currency ... it seems utterly insane and wrong, a huge waste of resources and miles of extra red-tape to deal with.

I guess that's why I think it's a good idea to form a North American Union. It would seem to eliminate a lot of inefficiency and hassle.

I agree with you on a lot of that. I've been putting off sending a picture to a guy in Canada for months (maybe years) now because I just don't want to go to the post office to fill out the paperwork. I know, it's not really *that* hard but I'm just really lazy. But anyway, all the advantages you say, I agree with. I think they'd all be good things.

And I think you're right that an NAU could actually help Mexico. As far as I can tell, their biggest problem is corruption and there's a possibility that a merger of the three countries would help start to reduce that.

I guess, however, that the centralized and uniform thing is not so abstract for me. I read the US Constitution and see how the US was supposed to have been a federation of sovereign states and I see how we haven't been anything close to that for a long, long time. If it was somehow possible for a country to be good and remain good, I'd be all in favor of the union. Since it appears to not be possible, I think the best we can possibly do is to have as much diversity as possible so as one place turns bad there are other options. [Side note: it's not working right now though as I don't yet see a better alternative to the US.]

Let's put it this way. If we elect Ron Paul in a year and we elect a congress of similar opinions and an NAU agreement comes along that looks rather like the US started out but perhaps with stronger limits on the central government (limits with penalties this time), then I'd probably come around. I'd still be suspicious but free travel, free trade, strong civil liberties protections, and so on are all good thing and it'd be good if they covered a wider area.

> |> Right on Otter, right fudging on. The magic
> word for today is: privatization.
>
> Well, I am undecided how I feel about privatization.
> On one hand, undeinabily its generally a more
> efficient than government run, but on the other
> hand some industries should be run by the government
> (police, military, etc). I just don't see why
> farming should be one of them (they're privatized
> in the US and it works just fine).
>

Actually it is deniable. Just ask the people on that bridge in Minnesota.

>
> |> That's what is killing Mexico for all but
> the wealthy, who respond
> |> to their growing poor population by telling
> them to go to the U.S.
>
> So what would be your solution, short of a US
> sponsored coop to overthrow the corrupt Mexican
> officials? I am asking an honest question here?
>

Well, first step would be to acknowledge the election fraud that went on ther in the last Presidential race. Ballots for Lopez-Obrador were being found in the trash, but Bush was the only world leader to step forwad and "congratulate Calderon" on his victory, thus throwing a wrench into the investigation.

>
> |> If it were any other country in the world
> doing that, we'd call it
> |> a form of ethnic cleansing, but because
> U.S. corporations are reaping
> |> financial benefits from it,
>
> I am not sure why it wouldn't just be easier for
> the US corporations to move to Mexico.

Uh, a lot of them are already doing that.

> Their
> farm land and climate is probably even better
> than the one over here anyway. In a free market,
> it would be more efficient to just let them grow
> their own food instead of importing it from here
> (most of it grown by them anyway).

Exactly.

> Lets see
> here, option one: grow your own food in a country
> which has better farm land with your own people,
> or b, import it from a country whose farm land
> isn't as good with your own people who waste a
> lot of effort into crossing the border. Something
> doesn't add up. I don't see why the US corporations
> can't just move to Mexico and exploit the cheap
> labor over there and then import the stuff into
> the US, instead of going through the trouble of
> risking large fines by hiring the same people
> who snuck to the US.
>

They may start doing that in the future if thing slike NAFTA aren't stopped.

>
> |>they just try to distract you by fueling
> |> racism and encouraging the spreading of
> stereotypes.
>
> I don't quite get how the said greedy corporations
> would benefit from the racism. Wouldn't it be
> in their best interest for there to be less racism,
> so that the voters wouldn't push laws keeping
> their cheep labor from coming in? Pushing for
> more racism would be counterproductive to their
> interests.
>

Not really. So long as the migrant workers are kept uninformed about things like labor rights (which is why the GOP got Civics classes taken out of schools, erroniously calling them Comunist) and terrified, they'll be easier to manipulate and exploit. There is no threat greater to these Leo Strausians than an educated populace.

I'm not really sure of the pros and cons of having a union with any other country's so I can't answer either way, although any" idea" of Bush's is an idea I wouldn't trust much.

> What about the Euro? What about McDonalds restauraunts in India and
> China? It's as inevitable as the first prehistoric homesteads becoming
> villages. In a sense, it's already happened to some extent.
>
> American business people have been setting up factories in Mexico
> for 30 years now just like New Yorkers might have set up factories
> in New Jersey 80 years ago. Since that time federal laws have userped
> state laws. Now, for some 60 years the WTO, WMF, and various international
> protocols control the behavior of entire nations. Already these protocols
> are determining things like food labeling and import restrictions
> in most 1st world nations. The US has a habit of drafting international
> law and not abiding by it itself though. This is gradually shifting
> though. The more this happens, the less significtant state and national
> borders become.
>
> Just what is it that you think will never happen?

I just could not vision Mexico and Canada forming a union with the USA sounds far fetched to me

I have to admit I am not that well informed to give an opinion if it will ultimately be good or bad. I do think it is inevitable though. It is an economic issue and will benefit Mexico the most. The United States and Canada in my opinion make up North America. I don’t know why I feel I would want to exclude Mexico except that when you mix too many different colors of paint together you end up with a ugly shade of gray, (that was not a racial slur). Economically it would dilute the U.S. and Canada’s economy with Mexico’s.

> Actually it is deniable. Just ask the people on that bridge in Minnesota.
>

Didn't I just say police, military, etc were the exception to the rule. I would have guessed that the etc would encompass bridges.



> Well, first step would be to acknowledge the election fraud that went
> on ther in the last Presidential race. Ballots for Lopez-Obrador were
> being found in the trash, but Bush was the only world leader to step
> forwad and "congratulate Calderon" on his victory, thus throwing a
> wrench into the investigation.
>

Going on the assumption that you are right and it really was a fraud (not much of a stretch, a reseanable probability thats actually the case) . Well, that would be a start, assuming calling it fraud would actually make a difference. Afterall, even if Bush called him out on it, he would just deny it and there would be crap Bush could do about it. I mean short of trade embargoes, which would likely make the situation worse. You're also overlooking that a lot of the corruption takes place at the state and local level, not the federal. So even if a different president took over, how much of a difference would that make?

This isn't to say the situation is hopeless but lets be real here. Look at what Saudia Arabia is doing and theres crap Bush or anyone can do about it. Well, ok, Mexico number one trading partner is the US so they have at least some incentive to not pissing us off.




> |> I am not sure why it wouldn't just be easier for
> |> the US corporations to move to Mexico.
>
> Uh, a lot of them are already doing that.
>

[ignoring the fact that I am actually ok with companies hiring people for whatever wages they're willing to pay if the people are willing to do the jobs for that amount because thats how the free market works...] Yes, I am aware of that. But then again, I don't get why greedy Mexican corporations can't hire the people in Mexico willing to work for pesos as opposed to the US ones. Afterall, you would think that they would have just as much a shot at the cheap source labor, if not more because of the less overhead since they're already there. If Mexicans are willing to risk crossing the desert at 100 degree heat to work for pennies, then obviously the alternatives are worse: a) work for Mexican corporations stationed in Mexico for pennies, b) work for US corporations in Mexico for pennies. The exploitation obviously can't be as bad as you say it is if they're picking it over their alternatives. I am guessing that currency conversions have something to do with it.

PS-- Its not just the top dogs, we as consumers do benefit from the cheap labor in the form of lower prices (unless you're boycotting a lot of products).




> |> Their
> |> farm land and climate is probably even better
> |> than the one over here anyway. In a free market,
> |> it would be more efficient to just let them grow
> |> their own food instead of importing it from here
> |> (most of it grown by them anyway).
>
> Exactly.
>

My guess is currency imparity, but my guess is as good as yours.



> They may start doing that in the future if thing slike NAFTA aren't
> stopped.
>

NAFTA probably isn't as bad as you make it out to be, but to be honest I haven't really looked at the issue. You seem to be only focusing on the cons and not seeing both sides.




> Not really. So long as the migrant workers are kept uninformed about
> things like labor rights (which is why the GOP got Civics classes
> taken out of schools, erroniously calling them Comunist) and terrified,
> they'll be easier to manipulate and exploit. There is no threat greater
> to these Leo Strausians than an educated populace.

I am not sure where you get that GOP is cutting Civics classes but ok, I grant you that point. Anyway, I don't get why that would be relevant anyway. Most people who cross the border illegally looking for work are generally already adults, so I take it they wouldn't be spending much time in US high schools. Also, I am sure they're no dummies. I am pretty sure that they're fully aware of the rights that workers NORMALLY have under regular conditions. They're not ignorant about their rights at all. Otherwise they wouldn't be going through the effort to get their papers when they get the chance. And I take it that they understand the risks of reporting their employers and understand that their employers know that but still make the conscious choice to take the jobs. Also, don't get me wrong, I am very glad for the civics class I had in high school, but I don't think one needs it to understand the concept of minimum wages, overtime, human resources, consumer protection agencies, etc. For that, you need to not be functionally retarded and understand the basics of how the world works around you.

> |> Actually it is deniable. Just ask the people
> on that bridge in Minnesota.
> |>
>
> Didn't I just say police, military, etc were the
> exception to the rule. I would have guessed that
> the etc would encompass bridges.
>
>

The etcetera should encompass a lot. I mean, let's look at the IRS for example. The collections of unpaid taxes that total more than $1 Mil. was farmed out to a private company (a subsidiary of DynCorp IIRC). They spend more taxpayer money on the collection efforts, but actually manage to collect less. That it just a classic example of what privitization is; spend more, get less.

>
> |> Well, first step would be to acknowledge
> the election fraud that went
> |> on ther in the last Presidential race. Ballots
> for Lopez-Obrador were
> |> being found in the trash, but Bush was the
> only world leader to step
> |> forwad and "congratulate Calderon" on his
> victory, thus throwing a
> |> wrench into the investigation.
> |>
>
> Going on the assumption that you are right and
> it really was a fraud (not much of a stretch,
> a reseanable probability thats actually the case)
> . Well, that would be a start, assuming calling
> it fraud would actually make a difference. Afterall,
> even if Bush called him out on it, he would just
> deny it and there would be crap Bush could do
> about it. I mean short of trade embargoes, which
> would likely make the situation worse. You're
> also overlooking that a lot of the corruption
> takes place at the state and local level, not
> the federal. So even if a different president
> took over, how much of a difference would that
> make?
>
> This isn't to say the situation is hopeless but
> lets be real here. Look at what Saudia Arabia
> is doing and theres crap Bush or anyone can do
> about it. Well, ok, Mexico number one trading
> partner is the US so they have at least some incentive
> to not pissing us off.
>
> |> |> I am not sure why it wouldn't just
> be easier for
> |> |> the US corporations to move to Mexico.
> |>
> |> Uh, a lot of them are already doing that.
> |>
>
> [ignoring the fact that I am actually ok with
> companies hiring people for whatever wages they're
> willing to pay if the people are willing to do
> the jobs for that amount because thats how the
> free market works...] Yes, I am aware of that.
> But then again, I don't get why greedy Mexican
> corporations can't hire the people in Mexico willing
> to work for pesos as opposed to the US ones.
> Afterall, you would think that they would have
> just as much a shot at the cheap source labor,
> if not more because of the less overhead since
> they're already there. If Mexicans are willing
> to risk crossing the desert at 100 degree heat
> to work for pennies, then obviously the alternatives
> are worse: a) work for Mexican corporations stationed
> in Mexico for pennies, b) work for US corporations
> in Mexico for pennies. The exploitation obviously
> can't be as bad as you say it is if they're picking
> it over their alternatives. I am guessing that
> currency conversions have something to do with
> it.
>
> PS-- Its not just the top dogs, we as consumers
> do benefit from the cheap labor in the form of
> lower prices (unless you're boycotting a lot of
> products).
>

Perhaps, but that lower cost is negated, as insurance premiums go up because people too poor to afford health care go to the ER, and more tax money is spent on prisons because there is a correlation between poverty rates and crime rates, among other things.

>
> |> |> Their
> |> |> farm land and climate is probably
> even better
> |> |> than the one over here anyway. In
> a free market,
> |> |> it would be more efficient to just
> let them grow
> |> |> their own food instead of importing
> it from here
> |> |> (most of it grown by them anyway).
>
> |>
> |> Exactly.
> |>
>
> My guess is currency imparity, but my guess is
> as good as yours.
>
>
>
> |> They may start doing that in the future
> if thing slike NAFTA aren't
> |> stopped.
> |>
>
> NAFTA probably isn't as bad as you make it out
> to be, but to be honest I haven't really looked
> at the issue. You seem to be only focusing on
> the cons and not seeing both sides.
>

Actually, I was initially a supporter of NAFTA. Back then, I wasn't looking at the cons.


>
> |> Not really. So long as the migrant workers
> are kept uninformed about
> |> things like labor rights (which is why the
> GOP got Civics classes
> |> taken out of schools, erroniously calling
> them Comunist) and terrified,
> |> they'll be easier to manipulate and exploit.
> There is no threat greater
> |> to these Leo Strausians than an educated
> populace.
>
> I am not sure where you get that GOP is cutting
> Civics classes but ok, I grant you that point.

They started it in the 1980s. I can remember that in 1st grade they still taught it but by second grade it was yanked from the ciriculum. Even at age 6 I could tell that something was wrong with the way Republicans did things, though it wasn't until I got older that I could actually figure out exactly what.

> Anyway, I don't get why that would be relevant
> anyway. Most people who cross the border illegally
> looking for work are generally already adults,
> so I take it they wouldn't be spending much time
> in US high schools.

This is true, but a lot of them bring their kids with them.

> Also, I am sure they're
> no dummies. I am pretty sure that they're fully
> aware of the rights that workers NORMALLY have
> under regular conditions. They're not ignorant
> about their rights at all.

Basic human rights sure, but how many illegals know about for example the Davis-Bacon Act? Hell, I didn't know about it until after Hurricane Katrina.

> Otherwise they wouldn't
> be going through the effort to get their papers
> when they get the chance. And I take it that
> they understand the risks of reporting their employers
> and understand that their employers know that
> but still make the conscious choice to take the
> jobs. Also, don't get me wrong, I am very glad
> for the civics class I had in high school, but
> I don't think one needs it to understand the concept
> of minimum wages, overtime, human resources, consumer
> protection agencies, etc. For that, you need
> to not be functionally retarded and understand
> the basics of how the world works around you.

If only it were that simple.

I agree with you Kristal Rose, there is a lot of greed, and unfortunately many of our precious young men and woman have lost their lives because of profit...this infuriates me. I admit I'm not knowledgeable about politics, but politics has always interested me, because I guess I want things right. Because of a few people in the world, don't care about our sovereignty....don't care about people, just the almighty dollar, we are losing our freedoms. I like what Ron Paul says. However, I don't know about strategies in the Mideast. I am concerned about Islamofacists, and sharia law....not here, no way. I am not a demo or republican, I'm registed as an Independent. I think this 2008 election will determine our future.

Trade unions like Nafta exist already. Our national governments wouldn't be dissolved, they'd simply have to comply more with multi-national standards the way states have to comply by federal standards now.

The problem with it is that no mechanisms are being suggested for democratizing these multi-national bodies. It would essentially put nations in the hands of global business persons, with minimal consent by congress.

I figured you might be a Ron Paul supporter. Libertarianism wouldn't be a bad thing except that it doesn't keep the greedy globalists in check. If you thought democratic governments could be oppressive now, you haven't imagined what the world would be like if all the food, credit, and utility companies were totally unchecked, as they would be in pure libertarianism. Libertarianism takes as it's foundation stance that capitalism will compete to offer the public the best value. It does'nt seem to work that way. BofA is now merging with American Express. Soon there will be one, maybe two credit companies, with the second only slightly offering a better deal to attract switching. Already they've all seemed to agree on charging $40 late fees. Eventualy, if you don't comply with 'the' bank, your life will be ruined.

I believe in the very opposite of libertarianism in this regard. Once a company becomes large enough to affect he public (essentilly any corporation) I would subject it to democratic participation, not just a board of stockholders purely motivated by profit. Powerful global entities should be serving the public, and not the other way around. That's actually how corporations started here, drafted by democratic decree to serve mammoth public needs like bridge building which contracted sole proprietorships or government agencies could not fullfill. Unfortunately, from the start, business people involved in such endeavours realized the advantage of transforming corporations into something with a profit motive instead, and using their power to achieve political things which family owned businesses could not.

The Clintons are controlled by someone as surely as Bush. Kucinich is willing to investiagte 9/11 further. Bill Clinton is outraged that people suspect it's an inside job. Cleary it is though. As surely as cars slow down when they hit something, there's no way those buildings could have fallen at free-fall speed unless the bottom floors were detonated first.

> The problem with it is that no mechanisms are being suggested for
> democratizing these multi-national bodies. It would essentially put
> nations in the hands of global business persons, with minimal consent
> by congress.

Well, isn't that how republic bureaucracies work? People elect the President and Congress, who then votes on who should be their nation's representative in these global organizations.

I am a bit of a libertarian myself, but Ron Paul takes the concept wwwaaaaaaaaayyyyy too far. Although he's still the closest to my vote on selectsmart (60%).

However, your idea on how to regulate corporations isn't the answer either. I just don't get why the public should get to vote on corporate matters just because its huge. Its that the whole point of owning stock? Doesn't seem very fair to the original stock holders, since gee, oh I don't know, the fact that its THEIR MONEY invested. If you don't like how a corporation is acting, um isn't that what the government is for? Make regulations in how businesses should operate.

> Trade unions like Nafta exist already. Our national governments wouldn't
> be dissolved, they'd simply have to comply more with multi-national
> standards the way states have to comply by federal standards now.
>
> The problem with it is that no mechanisms are being suggested for
> democratizing these multi-national bodies. It would essentially put
> nations in the hands of global business persons, with minimal consent
> by congress.

And look at China and the lead paint toys coming into America , we have had a food recall as well those pot pies
and frozen dinners and our beef has been recalled as well
We cannot trust the government or anybody to keep food safe nor can we trust China or any foreign country
any longer

I don't like a monopoly. I agree with what you've said. I'm not as learned in politics, but I can see something is really amiss. I think the banking/credit system is corrupt. The corruption of our government and corporate business sickens me.

I agree, 9/11 isn't what it seems. I saw a DVD on the explosions, and engineers describing the building. The thought of someone for mere profit, will hurt another life...it's too mind boggling....it's evil.

I feel this would be a good idea if the right ground work was setup. Unless the industrialized civilized countries of the world do something quick we will either be bowing down to Mecca or welcoming the Chinese communists soon as our leaders. Mexico is not exactly civilized democratic country but that could be changed.

Yes it is, unfortunately. I have to point out to people sometimes that we aren't actually a democracy, just a republic. We don't actually vote on anything which affects our daily lives, like the choice of flowers on our boulevards, the hours the library is open, drug usage laws, or the cost of canned spinach. We only vote when overwhelming public opinion is that that the representatives aren't dealing with something critical.

"The whole point of stock"? So you believe democracy should be in proportion to people's wealth? The rich can decide whethar to do away with minimum wage or trade tariffs, or cut corners on product nutrition, but not the poor?

Government regulating corparotions would somewhat equate to what I was suggesting, but I'm saying that corporations have gotten out of check, that instead, they influence which policy makers get elected in the first place.

And overall, I don't agree that the worlds most powerful institutions should be run by profiteers. Powerful entities which do not necessarily serve the overall public interest have no business existing. I don't agree with them being powerful agencies run as republic either though.

I would set up the government with four branches, one being the corporations. I would require that all of their decision intents be public, with time for the public to raise concern, upon which a 2/3 vote would be required from 3 agencies, a gov't opinion body of elected officials, and two concerned NGOs chosen by election (via phone-menu or internet by whomever cares to vote in the affected domain). If it's something like how to treat radioactive waste, or whethar to pay for guerillas on the banana farms, the public votes on it.

I also had a lessor idea for products and services in which buying them makes you a share-holder. The more Pepsi or phone service you buy, the more say you have in how they run things. Tha's still not fair though, because even the consumers might choose to step on others toes at times to reduce their own costs.

Yeah, because an informed public rarely has a say in such matters anymore as laws keep favoring handing more power to corporations.

That eminint domain could be used to take someone's house against their will to build a shopping center (because it's in the public interest) is clear evidence of how out of control corporations are getting.

Standing against China probably does have a lot to do with the motive for such.

For quite some time we've been able to juggle the accounting so we appear to profit, but the fact of it is that we now rely on their labor and material resources, and they're getting ready to cash in the debt, buying up our property, if nothing else. And when they want more of the worlds oil, which is also on the horizon, we will suffer horribly.

Most wars are for profit. Most corporations are at war. The only thing really different about this is that it's more of a class war. That the victim shares the same national territory doesn't matter anymore. It's much along the lines of local businesses not caring if they hire foreign nations to work for $3/hr, or reduce the local minimum wage to $3/hr.

What's really scary is that half of the armed forces are really mercenaries fighing on behalf of Haliburton. Existing geneva conventions haven't yet geared up for private corporations hiring private armies of 100's of 1000's to accomplish their international goals. Unfortunately if you follow all the trends to their logical conclusion, it adds up to a day when we ourselves are locally subject to unchecked corporate armies as well.

We just officially became a police state about a month ago by about a 400:6 vote of congress. The latest patriot act declares that anyone verbally suggesting physical civil disobedience (They specifically brought up WTO protestors in accompanying documentation) is no longer a civil defendant, but a federal terrorist, subject instead to military prosecution (where torture is legal). If you suggest a revolt, they can pick you up and torture you without a trial. That's what I call an unconstitutional police state. Kucinich is one of those six who rejected this bill. That's one reason why I think it's important to vote for him, even if it's only a message about what's proper to stand up for, when all other candidates seem to have been bought out by some evil conspiracy. He's an upstanding guided Christian too. I think you'd be charmed if you ever met him. He's a bit of a socialist, but no communist. For instance he'd put up tariffs, raise wages, put american workers like the steel industry back to work, stop greedy privatisation of power and water utilities, preserve social-security, nationalize health insurance, and invest in infrastructure like space programs. - In other words, make sure the american public is being cared for, rather than being stomped upon by global profiteers.

That might not be quite the political ideology you were supporting a couple years ago, but I think you understand the nature of global corporate greed better now, it's power, and it's role in destroying the american dream.

> Yeah, because an informed public rarely has a say in such matters
> anymore as laws keep favoring handing more power to corporations.
>
> That eminint domain could be used to take someone's house against
> their will to build a shopping center (because it's in the public
> interest) is clear evidence of how out of control corporations are
> getting.

They are so way out of line those corporations yes , and even baby food was being recalled as well yes baby food
and yes even cat food was being recalled at that same time as well
Just more and more pet food and baby food our lovable pets and we have to worry about our babies and
children being poisoned
Sure we will just go ahead and trust our government with all our heart and see what happens
then there will be blame and finger pointing going around
Yes it was Banquet pot pies and frozen dinners pulled off the shelves and even Peter Pan peanut butter
was recalled as well and pulled off the shelves

I do not trust anybody at all in Washington they are all against Americans and little do they care about women and
children or the homeless and what the hell happens to anybody
And just what we need next is this Union you just cannot trust other countries and lay your life down for them no
it smells and stinks in Washington and the Bush Administration is in the thick of it all right square in the middle

..and however bad it is now, unchecked private global trade unions would be worse. Yep yep.

So you believe democracy should be in proportion to people's wealth?

No, I believe we should render to the government what is the government's and render to the private sector what belongs to the private sector. Look, private citizens own corporations, because they bought them with their own money. Look, if you don't like what they're doing, pass laws to regulate what businesses can and cannot do, and have the law applied to everyone. How would you like it if your town voted how to run your own house.



The rich can decide whethar to do away with minimum wage or trade tariffs, or cut corners on product nutrition, but not the poor?

Um, no. CONGRESS can decide whether or not to do away with minimum wage or trade tariffs (and so far they haven't mind you), who are elected by the people. I don't know who taught you high school civics but I sure would like a word with them. Or maybe you've just slept thought it.




Government regulating corparotions would somewhat equate to what I was suggesting, but I'm saying that corporations have gotten out of check, that instead, they influence which policy makers get elected in the first place.

I think that you're overestimating their influence.



I would set up the government with four branches, one being the corporations.

Ok, lets for a second ignore the fact that the government can and does in fact own its own businessnes that compete with private sector businesses as a means to raise revenue. Why single out large corporations to be taken over by the government? That doesn't seem very fair to their owners when small businesses and medium sized corporations get exepmt. I mean if I work hard to make my company successful, by making profit while following all the laws and regulations, I should as a reward get to run it. And thats AFTER taxes. It probabbly makes logical sense that if I run something to be that successful then I probabbly know what I am doing.


I would require that all of their decision intents be public, with time for the public to raise concern, upon which a 2/3 vote would be required from 3 agencies, a gov't opinion body of elected officials, and two concerned NGOs chosen by election (via phone-menu or internet by whomever cares to vote in the affected domain).

Yes, because its not like the average person like you and me isn't influenced by their own selfish motives like the people on top--- ignoring that whole thing that nothing would ever get done because the executives would have their hands tied being their backs, similar to how the UN works.





I also had a lessor idea for products and services in which buying them makes you a share-holder. The more Pepsi or phone service you buy, the more say you have in how they run things.

To quote the debate moderator from the movie Billy Madson: "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

> ..and however bad it is now, unchecked private global trade unions
> would be worse. Yep yep.

Our military is in such poor shape and how can the U S A take on three more wars and fighting with more
countries like Pakistan and Iran then North Korea this cannot keep going on and who is paying for all these wars
Yes we have become a police state for sure

Yes it is, unfortunately. I have to point out to people sometimes that we aren't actually a democracy, just a republic.

There is a thing called rational ignorance. Perhaps you've heard of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance Believe it or not, the average person probably doesn't care what flower gets put in their boulevard. Shocker, huh?

> So you believe democracy should be in proportion to people's wealth?
>
>
> No, I believe we should render to the government what is the government's
> and render to the private sector what belongs to the private sector.
> Look, private citizens own corporations, because they bought them
> with their own money. Look, if you don't like what they're doing,
> pass laws to regulate what businesses can and cannot do, and have
> the law applied to everyone. How would you like it if your town voted
> how to run your own house.
>
>
>
> The rich can decide whethar to do away with minimum wage or trade
> tariffs, or cut corners on product nutrition, but not the poor?
>
> Um, no. CONGRESS can decide whether or not to do away with minimum
> wage or trade tariffs (and so far they haven't mind you), who are
> elected by the people. I don't know who taught you high school civics
> but I sure would like a word with them. Or maybe you've just slept
> thought it.
>
>
>
>
> Government regulating corparotions would somewhat equate to what
> I was suggesting, but I'm saying that corporations have gotten out
> of check, that instead, they influence which policy makers get elected
> in the first place.
>
> I think that you're overestimating their influence.
>
>
>
> I would set up the government with four branches, one being the corporations.
>
> Ok, lets for a second ignore the fact that the government can and
> does in fact own its own businessnes that compete with private sector
> businesses as a means to raise revenue. Why single out large corporations
> to be taken over by the government? That doesn't seem very fair
> to their owners when small businesses and medium sized corporations
> get exepmt. I mean if I work hard to make my company successful,
> by making profit while following all the laws and regulations, I should
> as a reward get to run it. And thats AFTER taxes. It probabbly
> makes logical sense that if I run something to be that successful
> then I probabbly know what I am doing.
>
>
> I would require that all of their decision intents be public, with
> time for the public to raise concern, upon which a 2/3 vote would
> be required from 3 agencies, a gov't opinion body of elected officials,
> and two concerned NGOs chosen by election (via phone-menu or internet
> by whomever cares to vote in the affected domain).
>
> Yes, because its not like the average person like you and me isn't
> influenced by their own selfish motives like the people on top---
> ignoring that whole thing that nothing would ever get done because
> the executives would have their hands tied being their backs, similar
> to how the UN works.
>
>
>
>
>
> I also had a lessor idea for products and services in which buying
> them makes you a share-holder. The more Pepsi or phone service you
> buy, the more say you have in how they run things.
>
> To quote the debate moderator from the movie Billy Madson: "Mr.
> Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic
> things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent
> response were you even close to anything that could be considered
> a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
> listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
> soul."


Heck they are running and controlling our homes right now you spank your children that is a no, no, the state
of Massachusetts is trying to pass this law where you cannot spank your children in your home or car
and who knows what else is out there , and the Radical Fundamentalists and religious people would love to
control us and put a leash on us all
Everybody wants control of something and the U S A has turned into a police state we can conrol other
countries and what they do to their people

> Heck they are running and controlling our homes right now you spank
> your children that is a no, no, the state
> of Massachusetts is trying to pass this law where you cannot spank
> your children in your home or car

Well, duh, thats kinda the government's job. To try to control its citizens/residents.



> and who knows what else is out there , and the Radical Fundamentalists
> and religious people would love to
> control us and put a leash on us all

I am sure they would. They're not doing a very good job of succeeding, but hey, you certainly are right. They sure are trying.



> Everybody wants control of something and the U S A has turned into
> a police state we can conrol other

Sure, everyone wants to control everyone else, but not everybody gets a shot at it. Calling ourselves a police state is a bit melodramatic imo.



> countries and what they do to their people

Not necessarily a bad thing. Considering that some countries force their women to wear bee-keeper suits and you get prison time for "offending Islam", I wouldn't have much problem for someone from the outside to control them and make them stop. Like GWB or not, obnoxious people like him are generally more likely to intervene in such situations.

Everyone wants to control everyone else?

I think that is far from true.

Maybe not on the individual level, but a large number of subgroups of people want to push their ideals onto others.

Also, even people who hate the idea of people controlling what others do at some point have to push to control others in order to achieve that.

For example, suppose one group of people wants there to be a law that women have to wear veils and/or that you need your parents permission to get married, or some other equally retarded rule that is apparently believed by some culture. And another sub-group of people who don't want that to be the rule-- for anyone, not just them. Well, sometimes the latter group would have to force the other group into their will. Live and let live doesn't quite work out very well when its applied to groups rather than individuals, especially when people have no choice to be in said group. Case in point, (no offense Maarten if you're actually reading this), the lilly white people in Netherlands who embrace the live and let live philosophy and selfishly legalize pot and prostitution for themselves but wouldn't raise a finger about the oppression that Middle Eastern women have to face in Muslim neighborhoods because that would be seen as wanting to control someone else. Yeah, thats real balanced; if you're white and not a Muslim female you get to smoke pot and sleep with prostitutes but if your a Muslim woman you can't even get married to whoever you want even though you both live in the same country. I know I am generalizing because I am sure there are a lot of people in Netherlands who have a problem with that but don't have the power to do anything. And no, the US isn't perfect in that regard either: case in point, allowing the Amish to live their lives however they see fit.

And yes, pretty much everyone wants to control everyone else to some degree. Unless you believe that rape and murder should be legal. I am assuming you don't.

Ok, to some degree, yeah, where human rights are concerned. I wouldn't say laws like rape and murder serve to control everyone though. Traffic laws do, so that counts for something.

Cities do have laws on how one runs their house, how late you can rock out, what explosives you can store in your garage, things which could possibly affect the public, as corporations do. Corporations aren't private, they're public. If they dump toxic waste it affects everyone. I'm saying the public has a right to regulate that sort of thing, and the current system has inevitably stopped working as corporations have gained more power than democracy.

Long ago we lived in serfdoms. The baron, chief, king, or whomever controlled the publics land use, their roles, their belongings, their creature comforts, and public services. People decided they didn't like that and came up with democracy to control their own lives. In the age of small mercantilism that worked, because we were free to select goods and services from a variety of competitve merchants. Now though we are back to monopolies, or at least industry leaders who operate in cahoots with each other as if they had a monopoly. We might as well be getting our utilities and sodas from the baron again. Sure, we have the freedom to suffer and boycott some of this stuff, but everyone realizes the public does'nt hve it together to cooperate in such matters to make a change, and so we pay whatever the market will bear, to the profit of the stockholder barons.

Our congress just voted 400:6 a month ago to officially make this counry a police state. If they aren't totally bought out, I can't imagine what new drug they're on. Maybe I could see your position if corporate lobbying was illegal, and conflict of interest laws were strictly enforced. As is, we have Bush giving our nations gold fo free to his father's Canadian company, mayors, governors, and congressman investing in things like health care, water privatisation, and such, things they directly profit from, affected by their votes.

Eminint domain was used to force the sell of homes for the public interest, that public interest being development of a shopping mall. Our supreme court was fine with that. Apparently public now means what corporations want, not what single or collective citizens want.

"f I run something to be that successful then I probabbly know what I am doing." - It only means that you know how to make a profit, not help the world. It often means you can find ways to skirt around rules, charge people more, pay labor less, spend less on environmental policies, etc etc.

I'm probably further on the other ond of the spectrum than you imagine. I don't feel anyone should be operating from a profit motive, but from a world benefit motive. Often those can be the same. The choices a company will make will often not be in the overall public interest when profit is their primary motive.

If you have a small private company selling sheet music or making candles, fine, but if you go chopping down too many trees, create customers who litter the streets with styrofoam cups, or run a service/product that the public hardly a choice but to buy, then it becomes a public matter what you do. It's no longer like your choice of bedside reading material.


Though hard to implement (through a cash register purchase database and ID cards perhaps) the idea's not crazy at all. It's essentially like credit unions or co-op supermarkets, where the consumers would vote to do what it takes to keep delivering the product at good quality while keeping the cost as low as possible. The problem with co-ops is that because they intentionally don't profit, and spend way more on things like labor and environmentalism, they lack the power to compete against pure-profit corporations. That wouldn't be a problem if anyone large enough to distribute products through a supermarket chain was forced to become a consumer-owner-co-op.

In the current system of capitalism, the less conscientious you are, the more you are rewarded. Regulation isn't going to change that foundation principle.
- Now to nearly argue against my point, I could suggest that people have RFID/Barcode scanners buil into their internet phones to see how various NGOs grade their product in various public categories. Unfortunately, without much monitoring, the idea of consumers paying more for more conscientious products does'nt work either, because, because of the above paragraph principle, companies are motivated by profit to even lie and suggest that they have a more conscientious product warranting it's purchase at a higher price. Look at how many products made in China have a picture of an american flag on the package corner, or coal and nuclear being sold as green power.

The system you are defending is not designed to nurture or even evolve to nurturing the greatest public good, rather quite the opposite, and hence the planet continues to degenerate. At best, it's evolution is to switch to less costly materials after they've made other convenient materials desperately scarce. More often though, it's usually the most toxic or destructive process policy which is most profitable. Regulation only sets their damage limits, rather than setting their underlying intent.

So let the people who care vote on it. I'm not asking for people to vote on a million things they don't care about. It'd be like volunteer service to vote on issues of familiarity. Since I would put all public-affecting decisions up fo vote, I'd create a system where for each category, people could defer their vote to their personally chosen representative. For instance on matters of nuclear waste, many people might choose to defer their vote to the Nature Conservancy, who might in turn defer all those votes distributed to their three nuclear waste experts.

In another more complex voting system I've envisioned, people could vote on anything within their realm of potential affectedness, but their voting ballot would include a random test chosen by all sides of an issue to be qualified. To vote on dumping nuclear waste in a lake, you would have to prove that you understand one NGO's concern, that all the the frogs would die, and the nuclear sites position that other disposal methods would cost too much. You couldn't vote on a congressional candidate without demonstrating that you knew most of the platform promises, as well as the verified dirt the opposition wants you to know about. I'm not for the country being run on charisma and deceptive marketing. I'm all for truly informed voting by those who care. We wouldn't be suffering from as many conflict-of-interest politicians in office, if people knew that's what they were voting for.

It's only in these past few months that I've surrendered to the concept of rational ignorance myself. That if I were to be productive, I can't afford the time to be deeply informed on some subjects of interest. .. but I'm not voting on those matters either. I am certainly annoyed that many elected officials claim to be less informed on things they voted on (as an excuse afterwards) than I am myself, when it's their job to know, and not mine. I can only imagine that they represent the vote of people who also did not know what they were voting for when they elected them.

To shift the topic slightly, I am against term limits to prevent corruption. It may be true, that in 20 years one corrupt may learn the tricks to stay in power and cause more damage, but, like any professional carreer, it's also true that it could take 20 years to become truly proficient for the good. We need to monitor who we elect to keep in office, not toss them before they con do any harm or good.

I'm not clearly getting your position out of this post. How is it unbalanced that Netherlanders choose to live as their culture chooses, and let other cultures choose to live as they choose? Same with the Amish. They keep to themselves, not affecting us. How is it our business?

I had a thought the other day [humor] that when child actors reach 18 they should live with the Amish for a summer, before making an informed choice to return to acting or not.

If that's what your're saying, that it's acceptable to extend and impose ones cultural practices in other realms, then how is it not acceptable to determine the culture of one's native economic-resource entities whom do affect us?

Exactly! It sounds like you get it. We have to wake up to the current threats in the world and stop sugar-coating them. If we don't start fighting back and taking control of the situation, then the situation will take control of us. I personally don't want to live in a world where the communists or fanatical muslims call the shots.

I understand the nature of global corporate greed, it's disgraceful. I also feel our soldiers are but soldiers for the U.N. There was a bill recently called the

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Bill Numbers: H.R. 1955 and S. 1959

Sponsors: Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)

Bill Summary:
According to supporters, the measure will play an important role in helping government and law enforcement officials understand and prevent domestic terrorism. In a speech on the House floor advocating passage of the bill, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) -- the coauthor and initial sponsor of the measure -- warned that the next time the U.S. faces a terrorist threat, "my assumption is that many who attack us will already be here, and some will be US citizens." To prevent that attack, she said, the new "legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it."

Critics of both pieces of legislation allege that the act is a thinly veiled and dangerous attempt to criminalize dissent. Such concern is based on the bills' vague and open-ended language that, critics say, could be used by the government to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes.


Bill Status:
H.R. 1955 passed the House by a landslide vote of 404-6 on October 23, 2007 (Roll Call Vote 993). The bill has been received by the Senate and was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

S. 1959 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) on August 2, 2007. The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Our Position:
The John Birch Society opposes the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as a terribly drafted and badly misnamed bill that is a dangerous assault on both free speech and thought. The Senate should reject the measure.

Among the many problems with this legislation are the definitions, such as these below, which could be applied to criminalize the speech of not only, for example, violent jihadists of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda who advocate suicide bombing, but also to jail and/or silence American patriots who write or speak out forcefully against a host of issues abortion, gun control, police-state surveillance, illegal immigration, or the Iraq War:

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term 'violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term 'homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term 'ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

In its section on key findings related to homegrown terrorism, the measure gives lip-service to constitutional rights, but also singles out the Internet and its open market for the flow of ideas and information as part of the problem. According to the measure, "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

The unspoken threat implied by that passage is that the government might have to clamp down on free speech online. "At base," wrote retired Col. Dan Smith in Counterpunch, "Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights."

I do feel our country needs to protect its own, keep the jobs here in this country....but I ask you whatever happened to personal responsibility? The government wants people to become dependent on them, which gives them more control. If it were up to me, I'd do away with income tax, get rid of the Federal Reserve. I call these people that now have a grip on the world....Satan's children.

I am commenting on the concept of group rights verses individual rights. Basically, the crux of my argument is that we should 100% do away with "group rights", especially if they interfere with individual rights. The unfairness comes when police refuse to intervene to enforce rule of law when someone gets hurt. Sub-cultures within Western countries shouldn't get to just live they way their culture chooses if they violate basic human rights. Call me culturally insensitive if I believe that the government should step in when their own adult citizens are forced into arranged marriages whose own laws state that its against the law. I mean it doesn't matter if you're a Muslim, Hindu, Amish, Mormon, whatever--- you're still a citizen/resident of whatever country that you are in and should abide by its own laws. Since when the fudge did the West lose its balls and let other people walk all over it not standing up for its basic values. I am not anti-Islamic or even anti-Amish btw. I know for a fact that over 99% of Muslims are good people who more or less are cafeteria Muslims not literally following the strict Islamic code and that Amish are more or less good people.

However, I still reserve the right to call the above groups on their bs, just as I call myself on it too. Since the Amish don't follow any of the government's laws (mistreatment of women, child labor laws, cruelty to animals, enrolling their kids in schools, paying taxes, etc) but still benefit from our police and military protection, I reserve the right to call them out on it.


If that's what your're saying, that it's acceptable to extend and impose ones cultural practices in other realms, then how is it not acceptable to determine the culture of one's native economic-resource entities whom do affect us?

Its acceptable for countries to impose their cultural practices on its own citizens if they go against that country's values. How come its ok for Eastern countries to do so (trying pulling the I am American/something else, I want to see my embassy card in a foreign country when you go against their laws and see how far it will get you (deportation if you're lucky)). But somehow Western countries have to accommodate others.

Anyway, economically speaking, our culture is a mixed economy. If you want to try to push to change that, fine, but don't expect to succeed.

So let the people who care vote on it. I'm not asking for people to vote on a million things they don't care about. It'd be like volunteer service to vote on issues of familiarity.

Most local governments have their city councils' make said decisions. They're normally open to the general public where one can voice their concerns. Sure, its not like a direct vote, but its something. Provided you aren't up against a bunch of Kevin Nealons.

Cities do have laws on how one runs their house, how late you can rock out, what explosives you can store in your garage, things which could possibly affect the public, as corporations do.

Fair enough.



Corporations aren't private, they're public.

The outcomes of many of their decisions and their budget is public, but their decision process is private.


If they dump toxic waste it affects everyone. I'm saying the public has a right to regulate that sort of thing,

The public DOES in fact regulate these sorts of things.


and the current system has inevitably stopped working as corporations have gained more power than democracy. [citation need]

Your last statement is more of an opinion than a factual statement. Environmental standards generally have in fact become stricter over the years, inspire of all the corporate lobbying. And its not like workers don't have all sorts of rights. We're just become spoiled and only think things are getting worse (the sky if falling!!, the sky is falling!!). Again, my last statement is more of an opinion than a fact as well.



Though hard to implement (through a cash register purchase database and ID cards perhaps) the idea's not crazy at all. It's essentially like credit unions or co-op supermarkets, where the consumers would vote to do what it takes to keep delivering the product at good quality while keeping the cost as low as possible.

ooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, you can do a thing called buying stock in the company and voting with you beliefs. Or vote with your dollar and don't buy from companies you disagree with.




The system you are defending is not designed to nurture or even evolve to nurturing the greatest public good, rather quite the opposite, and hence the planet continues to degenerate.

Our current system is the worst kind, except for all others. Look, I am not saying our system is perfect, but your "solution" isn't the answer either. I don't think that turning over corporate decision making to the public by force is the answer, when we already have a system in place to pass legislation.

> I am commenting on the concept of group rights
> verses individual rights. Basically, the crux
> of my argument is that we should 100% do away
> with "group rights", especially if they interfere
> with individual rights. The unfairness comes
> when police refuse to intervene to enforce rule
> of law when someone gets hurt. Sub-cultures
> within Western countries shouldn't get to
> just live they way their culture chooses if they
> violate basic human rights.

The recent #1615 was very similar. Same thought crime stuff, but military enforcement of it instead of civil, and establishment of a Sec'y of Defense position to administrate it. I'm guessing Kucinich was one of the 6 against that too, along with Maxine Waters.

The federal reserve was an ingenious system. The only problem with it is that all the humungous profits are private. If not for that though, the gov't would just print money whenever it wanted and we'd have 1930 German style inflation/depression, buckets of money for a beer.

I don't think very many in the gov't are directly motivated to control people, nor that there is any conspiracy to do so. The motivations are all profit to institutions, or like at any business, people want to see their agencies prosper. Things like Social Security are as simple as they appear, the notion as to whethar the nation should pick up those at the bottom or not. They try to implement back to work programs, but it's not all that easy when people were born, raised, and live in whole geographies where opporunities don't exist and attitudes of how to succeed were never taught.

As I've illustrated before with my Monopoly game example, the growing existence of the underprivelaged and gov't reliant is inevitable as long as monopolies keep putting more wealth and power in fewer hands.

I agree you're witnessing the results of corruption (if you refer to gov't assistance), but it's not a direct conspiracy, rather it's the effort of heros trying to compensate for the unintended by-product of greed. Those recent patriot acts are something entirely different though. The gov't is beginning to realize that both left-wing and right-wing public citizens alike are getting savvy about how things are being handed to global business at cost to americans, and are positioning the US gov't to simply be the police for these global corporate interests. In recent decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have been fostering the corporate problem. The only difference is that the democrats make up for the problems caused through assistance. Kucinich wants to put americans back to work for american companies or american government, stop the local poverty problem in the first place.

That Federal Reserve is a seperate issue that needs worked on. It too is a growing problem as it seems it is being replaced by WMF global versions.
How does the John Birch society feel about the Seattle WTO protests? This is the stuff they were trying to fight. I wonder because the JBS is portrayed as right-wing, the Seattle protesors as left-wing, and yet they're working on exactly the same problems, if your posts represent the JBS concerns (not including the immigraton issue).

But it's 'their' culture. In all likelihood, they see mainstream culture as lacking some of their rights.

I'm all for diversity made of pockets of group synergism, like a late night loud rock-and-roll neighborhood for instance. What would be creative opportunity to them would be an imposition to other cultural groups. The only thing I ask is that people are free to move. You can be Amish, Islam, a rock-and roller, or a folk artists, and live as your neighbors were that culture is encouraged.

I'm not entirely sure the gov't would even step in if some religious zealots in So. America aimed missles at our Amish communities (except that we probably protect them like a pet, mascot, or cultural landmark) (look at Katrina).

Like the natives and the Mormons, the Amish didn't sign up to participate in our national services, rather they tried tried to evade it until they were consumed in such matters.

"Stand up for it's own values"? Where? In someone elses nation?

While I feel that way about cultural diversity, I do not feel the same about global resources. If there is only so much cuban mahogany or oil on the globe, it should be divided equally without some company from some distant country demising it to their personal ends.

You are immersed in our culture, and thus don't see the manner in which we impose our values on immigrants. You can't come here and live mainstream life as a communist, for instance. You have to be a capitalist here unless you want to live on less than minimum wage. The government won't enforce the cultural values you took for granted elsewhere. They might allow your neighborhood to do things in the style of your culture, but even that is restricted, and not nurtured.

It's no different here than us travelling to other countries. A mid-eastern passport won't save you from being busted for smoking hash here, or stoning adulterers to death.

Yeah, I used to spend hours each week watching the city council meetings on tv, and getting involved in such matters. I finally decided I'd have more political power by becoming wealthy first instead, which means I need to work instead of being an activist for the time being.

What are Kevin Nealons about?

> But it's 'their' culture. In all likelihood, they
> see mainstream culture as lacking some of their
> rights.
>
> I'm all for diversity made of pockets of group
> synergism, like a late night loud rock-and-roll
> neighborhood for instance. What would be creative
> opportunity to them would be an imposition to
> other cultural groups. The only thing I ask is
> that people are free to move.

I think so too. In southernyankees examples, I was picturing people who were forced into marriages and whatnot, but who were not allowed to leave the culture to avoid it, either. That would be grounds for intervention.

"The outcomes of many of their decisions and their budget is public, but their decision process is private." and I don't think that's right. The public should be affected by the public.

Citation needed? Just look around. My eminent domain example is evidence. Back in the 1930's every single state had laws limiting interest to 6% or less. For the most part we stopped enforcing anti-trust laws a couple of decades ago. The cabinet who makes the anti-trust laws are a board of fortune 500 CEO's. It's wolf in the hen-house.

I can't afford to buy stock. The other problem with buying stock [this doesn't apply to my consumer-co-owner concept] is that buying stock nurtures a company. You couldn't effectively buy stock in a defense company with the intent of voting from within to shut them down.

Boycotting is tough when only one company provides your local phone, power, or cable service.

I don't have any real data, but it seems to me that countries which socialize their oil, healthcare, and education do well for themselves. Of course I thikn it's even better when these things are run with some democracy. I don't see why by extension this can't apply to other indusries as well. The country votes to create better internet service (run by the libraries) or to launch gulf-stream and jet-stream power generation, or build a power grid to connect to the mid-east (where they would send electricity instead of shipping oil, and prepare for solar generation), and the public vould vote for people to monitor and run these public industries. Concerned engineers could volunteer to vote on details.

We had a great infrastructure back in the 30's. Now no private industry can afford to build the sort of things like hydroelectric dams we built publicly in the past, nor have they a motive to do so since they can simply charge whatever the market will bear (thus even higher profit) on what is ultimately most inefficient but immediately most convenient (since no competion exists on that grand scale).

Yeah, exactly. There's still the child-raising indoctrination issue, but I figure give society's that have perpetuated thus far some benefit of the doubt. In time, informed adults there will evolve to switch to the more sensible cultures while other cultures evolve or die out.

But it's 'their' culture. In all likelihood, they see mainstream culture as lacking some of their rights.

To quote from the movie Screwed: "wwwhhhooooooooooooooooooo cares"

Who cares what they think, if their culture either makes their women wear beekeeper suits or shuns them for reporting rape. Yes, some Amish communities actually do that. Oh yeah, and some communities also have very high rates of child molestation and Uncle Sam rarely gets involved. Not to mention the way some of them mistreat animals. If they see the mainstream culture as flawed because to them rapists being put behind bars goes against their values, then tough crap. At least radical Islam to their credit takes a hard line against rape, granted assuming the victim somehow didn't "provoke" it. Please don't feed me moral relativism bs. I think Bill Maher has an opinion on that.

I am not suggesting invade Saudi Arabia and instigate a coup to overthrow their mullahs or anything mind you. I am a realist off course, and realize only their own people can change their government. But don't tell me that their way of life is equal to ours. I am rooting for the reformers.


I'm all for diversity made of pockets of group synergism, like a late night loud rock-and-roll neighborhood for instance. What would be creative opportunity to them would be an imposition to other cultural groups. The only thing I ask is that people are free to move. You can be Amish, Islam, a rock-and roller, or a folk artists, and live as your neighbors were that culture is encouraged.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for diversity. Other religions can be interesting and teach us a lot. I have many friends of other faiths. But theres also a point at which you got to draw the line. You still have to follow some set of laws. Your argument also falls apart since not everyone gets a choice in the matter if they belong in a certain community. Lets not forget to take children under 18 and kidnapping into account.




Like the natives and the Mormons, the Amish didn't sign up to participate in our national services, rather they tried tried to evade it until they were consumed in such matters.

Well, like it or not, if not for Uncle Sam, the Amish probably wouldn't exist. Someone else would have taken them over pretty quick, since they got no army and refuse to assimilate into any outsider cultures. They would have been wiped out pretty quickly, unless they resorted to breaking their own don't fight back rule. They were originally known as the Anabaptists, who were very dull and uninteresting people. Only by many lucky coinstances did they manage to survive because they got lucky into having other people romanticizing them. They're like hippies without the sex and drugs.



You can't come here and live mainstream life as a communist, for instance. You have to be a capitalist here unless you want to live on less than minimum wage. The government won't enforce the cultural values you took for granted elsewhere.

Caveat. The US is a mixed economy, not a pure capitalist country. Its not like the communists haven't influenced US policy to a certain extent, some for the worse some for the better. You seem to be a borderline communist and you seem to be doing somewhat well for yourself.

As Bush said "Money trumps everything". The Democrats and the Republicans wear the same stripes. The John Birch Society is conservative, anti-communist organization The Birch Society believes in retaining our sovereignty, against the one world global elitists.

Sure, we feel that stuff is bad, but what I'm saying is that they may feel that things we do do, like profiting off of each other or promoting ourselves in media are wrong too. Who's to say that they shouldn't be imposing thir values on us instead?

I'm anti-abortion myself, but it's not my place to go making the rules for others, because it's subject to non-scientific theology and philosophy (of course one might make the same argument for killing off categories of adults too). God hasn't knocked on my door and told me that folks shouldn't be doing it. People are divided on spanking kids.

Mistreat animals? I'm a vegetarian. Do you want me imposing my definition of mistreating animals on you? There are no confirmed absolutes in these sorts of matters. Everyone has different values, and no universally agreed upon standard exists for rating them, or who's right. Even if the standard were 'Do unto others' there's still too much interpretal latitude.

You have no evidence that they would have been wiped out. It may very well be that their spiritual principles of do no harm have been good karma for them, in fact, even if they were protected by outside forces, you still couldn't disprove that their spiritual ideology was protecting them.
Even if you don't want to imagine some karmic mechanism happening there, it's a general principle that people are willing to protect people who are good and innocent. The moment they arm themselves, they're put in an 'You're on your own' category.

My recent goal is to become a capitalist billionaire so I can create opportunity for those with generous communist ideology. Trying to do it by living as a communist myself wasn't working. It's a capitalist country and I can't sway the tide unless perhaps I have the spare wealth of 100,000 others, to create high tech communes. I plan to start with the music instrument industry, add my software concepts when I can afford programmers (I came up with eBay, Amazon, and 2nd-Life in fair detail before they did and just didn't have the resources to single-handedly compete in a timely manner), then work my way up in to the global energy and transportation markets.

Then in certain matters they should stand with the left-wing radicals. As long as they argue with other groups (about being under Satan's spell, for instance) both groups are neutralized, but if they stood up unanimously together on what common ground they did have, the administration could no longer make excuses that half of america is behind what they enact.

Money only has that power because the majority of people in the world surrender to the notion that those with money are the ones with the power. We could all choose to follow and back the most virtuous people instead, and ignore money. In other words, it's our own fault that this corruption is nurtured; It's what we choose to believe the rules of the planet are.

Huge global wars of economic perception management are taking form now because the US is threatened with the rest of the world disbelieving in the dollar. Belief is the only thing which gives it value, so that would spell economic catastrophe for us if others created and put value in new alternative currencies instead of ours.

Sure, we feel that stuff is bad, but what I'm saying is that they may feel that things we do do, like profiting off of each other or promoting ourselves in media are wrong too. Who's to say that they shouldn't be imposing thir values on us instead?

[Well, ignoring the fact that we're more technologically advanced than they are, and most of the technology used in terror was invented by us. Take a guess which culture invented the camera that Bin Laden uses to make his tapes.] Um, how bout the fact that we've been there done that. Most of the Western world has at one time used the same kind of reasoning that radical Islam uses now to a certain extent. I mean its not like there was a lot of oppression or stupid cultural rules in the 1800's or anything. It took a lot of pushing to get to where we are right now. For instance we know that slavery is wrong because from experience of actually doing it. We know that its wrong to judge a woman's reputation because she doesn't have a chaparone 24/7 or that she got left before getting married, mostly because we've done it ourselves in the past. In just about any objective measure equal rights is a superior to ones of the current Islamic laws. Whereas I can't think of any precedent where theres something they got right but we never got around to it.

Besides, I never said we should forcefully Westernize Islamic countries. It will likely happen on its own anyway. I am simply saying that the ones who move here should be forced to assimilate to how the West thinks. However, we should and do impose our values on people from other cultures that choose to come live in Western countries. I don't think its right to bend over backwards and piss away 500 years worth of progress just because we're afraid of offending someone.

Ditto for mixed capitalism. The world has already tried pure capitalism and has already tried communism and decided to do away with both systems. Communism in retrospect turned out to be a bad system. See, there is precedent for it being a bad system. Ditto for ideas like arranged marriages, slavery, women being forced to have a chaporone and worried about their "reputation", burning "witches" at the stake, etc. All Western ideas at one time or another. We know that they're wrong in retrospect and theres a lot of precedent for the fact. If anything, Middle Eastern countries should look to us and learn from our mistakes. Whereas there isn't a single idea thats been proven wrong that is still around in the west but adopted by ME countries.



Mistreat animals? I'm a vegetarian. Do you want me imposing my definition of mistreating animals on you? There are no confirmed absolutes in these sorts of matters. Everyone has different values, and no universally agreed upon standard exists for rating them, or who's right. Even if the standard were 'Do unto others' there's still too much interpretal latitude.

Theres no absolutes in terms of laws, but there are universal laws that legislators pass that are a minimum standard and apply to everyone. The difference is that if anyone other than the Amish treated animals in such a way, they'd be arrested. Why does everyone ELSE have to follow the las but them. But not being a vegetarian isn't that law. You're not in a position to impose your definition of mistreating animals because your definition is too restrictive, whereas society's rules are a very minimal set of laws. You should at least follow the minimum.



I plan to start with the music instrument industry, add my software concepts when I can afford programmers (I came up with eBay, Amazon, and 2nd-Life in fair detail before they did and just didn't have the resources to single-handedly compete in a timely manner),

Sure, thats what they all say. I am sure the same idea was invented and reinvented hundreds of times. I had ideas for war games right after playing Sim City but apparently other people invented them already. Its very hard to be original.

You said it succinctly! We have allowed this to happen, for this reason, we'll have our woes. Satan is like a "bird catcher", looks for his prey, and sees who are vulnerable, trusting, naive, easily led

How do technology skills relate to having the most virtuous ethics? One shouldn't have to try slavery to see that it is wrong. Every culture is familiar with that concept anyhow. If they were making a case for being more evolved, they'd mention "Just 140 years ago half the american work force was slaves". No, we judge women by their fabricated makeup and decor, not by what we hear though a veil.

I'm not saying I think their values are any better; I'm sure I prefer most of those I was raised with. I'm just saying there's no means of comparison. Street criminals may give up certain practises after getting locked up a time or two. That doesn't indicate that whatever they have chosen to keep doing is more virtuous than what others do.

I wrote in a post elsewhere that as long as adults are free to move, cultures will evolve or die out. The US evolves faster because we are a melting pot. For us to get along, we've had to stick to the common denominator amongst values. Conversely, we're also stuck with the common denominator of acceptable corruption from these diverse culures. Cheat someone in business deal, we can andle that, maybe fine you heavily, every culture is used to that; Sacrifice animals in your front yard rather than letting the meat factory take care of that sort of thing, and you're beyond the scope of our common denominator culture. That's still not to say it's necessarily worse.

This is a bit of an aside, but I can make a case that we haven't disproven communism. Rather we have disproven communism in a globe of military and economic conflict. For that matter, we've only tried hierachical republic communism in recent centuries. Something more akin to grass roots democracy communism is what kept western society (natives, mny others come to think of it) ticking for centuries. Such societies didn't advance much technically, merely sustained themselves, but we can't claim that's bad either. Self-sustaining is still at least better than the self-destruction technical societies have always found themselves on the verge of.

I think we did away with witch burning because of the melting pot. We had too much micro-culturally-accepted diversity to accept to go pointing fingers. There are still pockets of those who haven't accepted the melting pot and would point the finger at all foreign cultures though.

In mainstream america, my vegetarian position is a minority view. In many ME countries, veils on women are not a minority view. How would you even define 'too restrictive'?; again, no absolutes.

The Amish are exempt because they don't live amongst us. A neighborhood of loud late night musicians would be exempt in my favored system from 10pm noise curfews because they wouldn't be living with others either.

What I'm saying is that people WANT different community laws. Some want open drug use, some want no drug use. There's no universal (or necessarily even porof of practical experience not subject to context) saying that one set of values is better than another. In light of that, it makes perfect sense that different communities live by different laws. Some people here are complaining about income taxes being an unfair imposition, and there are probably other foreign cultures who would agree with them. Impositions come with packages of laws.

If you ask me, rather than globalising laws, the answer is to go grass roots, where national laws supercede global treaties, state laws supercede federal laws, and city laws supercede state laws. If Jerome Arizona wants to smoke grass, the DEA has no business turning over every residents bed in the middle of the night. - I only ask two things of such a system, that from the global top down, the rights of people to move to other communities is enforced, hmm.. just forgot the other. It would also be nice if global police stood up for any community when the leadership of that community did not represent the common majority desires of that community (no matter what those desires were).

Societies laws aren't always minimal. Some cultures (even if the law is merely implied) dictate what prayers you say at times of the day, BUT that's what they agree upon there. If that's what they want, fine.

¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø, ¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,

We live in a universal mind. Competitive people is a delusion. It does make it tough being highly connected to the universal mind but playing competitive capitalism though.

Now that you mention it, others probably came up with the eBay concept too. CraigsList for instance. I came up with the same look and feel, back, just as the internet was emerging (I was going to use a phone-modem point-to-point web model). I was designing a photo-search daabase app for a client to redistribute surplus goods and furnishings amongst 7000 Bay Area non-profit agencies. From there, the jump to the eBay idea was short. Where my idea differed (and probably would have failed mass-appeal) is that it was based on barter, but could involve multiple party trades to ultimately get what you wanted anyhow. Also, I had a system of transport logistics in which people just traded a box of goods with a neighbor, some theirs, some passed along on behalf of others. A bag of golf-clubs could get from Maryland to Arizona for free, but it would have to pass through 20 hands first. I wasn't realizing how prominent the 'want it now' mindset was even amongst the garage sale crowd. Anyhow, as you can imagine reading that, it involved writing much more code than eBay uses, and would have had poorer ease of use. I had no hopes of singlehandedly beating them to market if they had their idea at the same time.

By Amazon, I particularly mean the 'People who liked this also like...' algorithm, now used by Netflix too, and hopefully by search engines soon. I have an even better idea now, but I'll keep that secret for now. I came up with the idea because I wanted to find good fiction and music at the library, for material that could only be subjectively catalogued at best. People who like both the Velvet Underground and John McLaughlin's sitar ragas probably actually like grungestalt melodies happening in the complex time signature harmonics, but probably don't realize this is the case. The algorihm doesn't need subjective/objective cataloguing or even to know why, to suggest that Nigel Kennedy's violin music would fit the bill. Anyhow, that was 1993, and they beat me to getting that to market.

2nd-Life is almost exactly as I intended, down to the programming language people use there, which I had gotten as far creating a proof-of-concept for. The only significant difference is that my realm would have been 2.5D (rotating dioramas in 3D space), not full 3D, to make it easier for anyone to add their own content.

I also invented the concept behind Adobes Spry product (same language concept). They still haven't nearly caught up with my feature set yet though. Perhaps they do actually have the same feature set in mind, but rushed to become the industry name leader, figuring people like me were working on a full-blown version.

I am currently 2/3 done writing a new computer language for microcontroller chips which will quadruple what programmers can do with them. Just last week, I released on the MikroC compiler forum (the language wany people use to program these chips) a utility which doubles their access to the chips memory without resorting to writing in Assembly code. 10's of 1000's of programmers will probably appreciate that freebie (if my post gets distributed), since now they won't have to buy bigger memory chips.

I can create that language because I've programmed in 40 other languages, and have experience with a wide variety of programming concepts.

Which leads up to why I expect more success in original digital musical instruments than software. It's not original clever ideas alone which succeed, it's more about producing and marketing them. Usually that simply comes down to R&D investment funds. Where I think I have the edge on my musical instrumens is that their development requires an odd mix of specialties incorporating most of my 27 years of college. Quite simply, even if someone else does have the same ideas as me, it's unlikely that they have the knowledge/skill resources I do to develop it as quickly.

I have some 1200 ideas on the drawing board; For instance, 20 years later there are finally automatic and infinite ratio bicycle transmissions on the market, but neither compare to my robust simplicity design yet. Many of my ideas are safe for now simply because the resource technology isn't available yet (like nanotechnology). I'm sure it will be soon though. I haven't been able to develop these ideas single-handedly at no cost. Even the music instruments that I thought I could develop for nearly free have forced me to put $1000's extra on my credit card, with more $1000's on the horizon for things like FCC testing.

People trust authority and the mainstream majority. Though lazier than thinking for ones self, it's not all that irrational, and you can't really blame them; It's faith that others gave some proper thought to the matter while you were too busy, and often that sort of thinking is required for society to function. We cant distrust everyone and do everything ourselves. Sometimes though, like with Hitler or Bush, that system of trust clearly goes wrong.

The only practical answer for that is to have a good spiritual ear or intuition to 'know' when things aren't as they appear. Few have that capacity today though, and trusting those who do would amount to the same problem again.

As the Bible says "for those that can see and hear". I don't blame the innocent, law abiding people for being naive...I blame the corrupt government and corporate world for selling us out.

Sure. That our mainstream belief system unintentionally fosters corruption, doesn't get the intentionally corrupt off the hook.

> I understand the nature of global corporate greed,
> it's disgraceful. I also feel our soldiers are
> but soldiers for the U.N. There was a bill recently
> called the
>
> Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
> Prevention Act of 2007
>
> Bill Numbers: H.R. 1955 and S. 1959
>
> Sponsors: Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) and
> Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
>
> Bill Summary:
> According to supporters, the measure will play
> an important role in helping government and law
> enforcement officials understand and prevent domestic
> terrorism. In a speech on the House floor advocating
> passage of the bill, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
> -- the coauthor and initial sponsor of the measure
> -- warned that the next time the U.S. faces a
> terrorist threat, "my assumption is that many
> who attack us will already be here, and some will
> be US citizens." To prevent that attack, she said,
> the new "legislation will help the nation develop
> a better understanding of the forces that lead
> to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take
> to stop it."
>
> Critics of both pieces of legislation allege that
> the act is a thinly veiled and dangerous attempt
> to criminalize dissent. Such concern is based
> on the bills' vague and open-ended language that,
> critics say, could be used by the government to
> trample basic rights to free speech and assembly
> and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes.
>
>
> Bill Status:
> H.R. 1955 passed the House by a landslide vote
> of 404-6 on October 23, 2007 (Roll Call Vote 993).
> The bill has been received by the Senate and was
> referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
> and Governmental Affairs.
>
> S. 1959 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins
> (R-ME) on August 2, 2007. The bill was read twice
> and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland
> Security and Governmental Affairs.
>
> Our Position:
> The John Birch Society opposes the Violent Radicalization
> and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
> as a terribly drafted and badly misnamed bill
> that is a dangerous assault on both free speech
> and thought. The Senate should reject the measure.
>
> Among the many problems with this legislation
> are the definitions, such as these below, which
> could be applied to criminalize the speech of
> not only, for example, violent jihadists of Hezbollah,
> Hamas, and Al-Qaeda who advocate suicide bombing,
> but also to jail and/or silence American patriots
> who write or speak out forcefully against a host
> of issues abortion, gun control, police-state
> surveillance, illegal immigration, or the Iraq
> War:
>
> (2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term 'violent
> radicalization' means the process of adopting
> or promoting an extremist belief system for the
> purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence
> to advance political, religious, or social change.
>
> (3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term 'homegrown terrorism'
> means the use, planned use, or threatened use,
> of force or violence by a group or individual
> born, raised, or based and operating primarily
> within the United States or any possession of
> the United States to intimidate or coerce the
> United States government, the civilian population
> of the United States, or any segment thereof,
> in furtherance of political or social objectives.
>
> (4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term 'ideologically
> based violence' means the use, planned use, or
> threatened use of force or violence by a group
> or individual to promote the group or individual's
> political, religious, or social beliefs.
>
> In its section on key findings related to homegrown
> terrorism, the measure gives lip-service to constitutional
> rights, but also singles out the Internet and
> its open market for the flow of ideas and information
> as part of the problem. According to the measure,
> "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent
> radicalization, ideologically based violence,
> and the homegrown terrorism process in the United
> States by providing access to broad and constant
> streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United
> States citizens."
>
> The unspoken threat implied by that passage is
> that the government might have to clamp down on
> free speech online. "At base," wrote retired Col.
> Dan Smith in Counterpunch, "Harman's proposal
> seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment
> rights."
>
> I do feel our country needs to protect its own,
> keep the jobs here in this country....but I ask
> you whatever happened to personal responsibility?
> The government wants people to become dependent
> on them, which gives them more control. If it
> were up to me, I'd do away with income tax, get
> rid of the Federal Reserve. I call these people
> that now have a grip on the world....Satan's children.
>
>
>

Me and the John Birchers on the same page? I never thought I'd see the day. I do disagree with that last part however. Without a functioning government (functioning being a key word here folks, the thing that Right Wingers are against), we get more poisoned foods, more collapsing bridges, more crime (taxes pay for cops people), etc. The Ultra Right Wing/Libertarian version of America is Anarchy with power ties. I mean, it amazes me that people still think Bush's tax cuts are a good idea, even after the Katrina Aftermath, or that bridge in Minnesota, or the fact that even significant numbers of BILLIONAIRES were against it!

How do technology skills relate to having the most virtuous ethics?

Semi-valid point, however I did say ignoring the fact before the statement. Society's with more "progressive" values, such as women's rights and free trade tend to do better technologically. The positive correlation is pretty strong. Feudalism wasn't very conducive to technological development because most of its society was repressed with no chance of upward mobility, or as you would call it, a utopia where people are closer to the earth. Ditto for women's rights and public education, since women going into scientific fields increases the probability that something new will be invented. Ditto for merchantilism of the 1700's and labor unions of today which tended/tend to slow down technological progress, usually because of someone's self-interest.



One shouldn't have to try slavery to see that it is wrong.

No, but its enough that somebody has tried it to know that its wrong. The US never tried full-scale communism either but that turned out to be the wrong way of doing things.



If they were making a case for being more evolved, they'd mention "Just 140 years ago half the american work force was slaves". No, we judge women by their fabricated makeup and decor, not by what we hear though a veil.

And their case would be a very weak one, since some Islamic countries don't allow women to testify, hence don't care what they have to say anyway. Also, its not like Islam didn't take slaves or anything and its not like they don't judge women by their looks to a certain extent (the reasoning behind the veil rule is that women's faces are so evil because they're attractive and supposedly make men do crazy things). You do realize that Islamic women take off their veils onces married when in their homes. The Western reasoning behind less restrictive clothing is that people build up a tolerance mitigating the issue.



I wrote in a post elsewhere that as long as adults are free to move, cultures will evolve or die out. The US evolves faster because we are a melting pot. For us to get along, we've had to stick to the common denominator amongst values.

A bit of an oversimplification of how your model would play out in the real world. This ignores how laws and legal systems work. Suppose for instance that one community believes that you should get your hands cut off for stealing and get the ax for adultery. And people who live there agree to abide by those rules voluntarily until someone spontaneously decides to steal some stuff. Suddenly their position changes on the issue and they quickly run away to a different culture. See adultery. Now, suppose that these people have successfully ran away into a neighboring town that shares a different values set. Should the new town extradite the run aways.

This can also work in reverse. Suppose one culture thinks that stealing should be legal or at least doesn't believe in punishment. You can run away from a normal punishment for stealing (say, community service) simply to dodge punishment. Again, should the new community extradite the individual? Extradition would be a royal pain in the ass in your world. You would still need a system of punishments for any society to impose their rules and if they all have different rules, setting up a fair agreements would be difficult in practice.

To complicate things further consider how money works. One community believes in the 50/50 rule in case of divorce. Another society believes that the man gets 100% and a 3rd believes that the woman gets 100% of the assets. A couple is about to get divorced and they both have bank accounts in all three jurisdictions. Naturally they will both want to voluntarily relocate to a different jurisdiction to get their divorce. Same complications will arise from corporations that span communities. Which culture gets to try the cases in their courts?





What I'm saying is that people WANT different community laws. Some want open drug use, some want no drug use. There's no universal (or necessarily even porof of practical experience not subject to context) saying that one set of values is better than another. In light of that, it makes perfect sense that different communities live by different laws. Some people here are complaining about income taxes being an unfair imposition, and there are probably other foreign cultures who would agree with them. Impositions come with packages of laws.

Me being in favor of legalized drugs aside, your statement that no set of values is better than another is asinine. So a culture that doesn't believe in equality is morally equal to one that does?



If you ask me, rather than globalising laws, the answer is to go grass roots, where national laws supercede global treaties, state laws supercede federal laws, and city laws supercede state laws. If Jerome Arizona wants to smoke grass, the DEA has no business turning over every residents bed in the middle of the night. - I only ask two things of such a system, that from the global top down, the rights of people to move to other communities is enforced, hmm.. just forgot the other.

So then how would you punish criminals who wish to freely leave their community?



Your ideas don't seem very well thought out.

I don't doubt that our kind of free society advances more technically. Pragmatics are easier to define than virtue, but exterminating unproductive citizens could be pragmatically advantageous too, though certainly not ethical by most anyones standards.

I haven't figured out the extradition part yet. It would probably be like international extradition is now, with many seperate agreements, and quite a mess.
To some extent, though I think it can simply be answered by communities agreeing to prosecute with their own punishment (perhaps even taking flight as likilihood of guilt, unless the courts are known to be corrupt there). You may escape getting your hands cun off, but do 40 years in jail instead, and you can't go back once you've expatriated. No one is likely to form a community where crime goes unpunished, or it would become a criminal haven, and non-criminal residents may prefer to migrate to a hand-chopping community just so they know their belongings are safe.

I think the with the divorces they'd both be stuck with whatever countries law they got married in, unless they had both moved together to a new community. Even now gays may be tempted to move to a country that recognizes benefits to their marriage before getting married. You can't expect Utah to recognize and administrate their divorce later though. There would be other situations to, like moving between private ownership and communal ownership communities. Still, even this has worked out in the past between nations.

"Me being in favor of legalized drugs aside, your statement that no set of values is better than another is asinine. So a culture that doesn't believe in equality is morally equal to one that does?" Unless one of is God, and knows better, absolutely. I may have my opinions on things like abortion, vegetarianism, and gender equality, but they are only my opinions. Not even a majority view is indicative of morality. Genocide has happened with support of a large local majority.

There is a spectrum between what I wish, community rule, and what is inevitably happening, global law offering only the common denominator of enforcement and rights. The world can't evolve in that latter fashion, and it's not as much fun either. Sure, more community governments would create hugely complex administration issues, but this is the information age. We can handle that sort of thing now.

I answered the punishment question in an earlier response of this post. Community evolution will still work things out. I suppose it's possible that a community of pure criminal terrorists could evolve too, like the dark forest thievery clans in Grimms tales, but other communities would evolve and develop treaties to handle those folks when they invaded turf too.

My system already exists; you can move to Amsterdam to smoke hash. I'm just saying take it further, to global villages with elastic borders as one trend increases and others die out.

I compare my life as child to the rights my own children have, and it's become fairly grim. They can't do things like build tree houses the way we could. 1950's kids chemistry sets would have the feds knocking on your door, and DVD's of early Sesame Street episodes are now labeled 'adult content'. I don't think pure homogenity is a good thing, but that's where it's all heading. I'm all for Hawaiaans, Jews, or Native americans preserving and enforcing their cultural heritage way of life, just so long as anyone is free to become one, or stop being one by moving out of the community.

My ideas are quite thought out. It's not all that complicated. It's simply a return to the local communes of centuries past. Even restoring our Xth ammendment would go a long way. Sure, we have more mobility now, but even then, the going way of preserving a communities values was often to send someone who didn't fit on down the road, if they didn't have the sense to leave themselves. People got to start out fresh and build a new community reputation.

The only part that is complicated is that all land is owned mutually by individuals and civil jurisdictions now. My system might require that Jerome, AZ incorporate neighboring Cottonwood, AZ when the grass smoking population increased there, or those who believed in the communist-like city-hall participation of Acadia, CA expanded borders there too, until perhaps all No. Cal. had adopted that system.

***

I have another system (don't confuse 'not thought out' with 'tersely explained') which remedies the property situaton as well. In this system local governments are like non-geographic membership in political entities akin to credit-card membership. This wouldn't work for open-space laws like smoking dope in public, but it could mean that you were part of a communist collective while your next-door neighbor belonged to a capitalist collective. In your collective, members might volunterr 20 hours labor per month running the non-profit grocery, phone, school, or healthcare services your collective runs, and voting on the internet on how to run the whole show. Your neighbor may have no vote, and get stuck with whatever Target coupons or Pan-American flight deals their credit collective offers.

In fact heading there is part of my wealth building motive. I've come to realize that corporations are king here, often even above civil law in practice (you can have secret board meetings, but if three private citizens secretly conspire against an entity it's a felony), and that building communal systems from thin air wasn't going to happen. Instead I realized that communes could be created AS corporations, with total profit sharing, and businesses with swimming pools, luxiurious international restauraunts (staffed by employees), private rooms, shared music studios, metal sculpting labs, libraries, etc etc (all part of the facilities R&D and production resources), and all tax free since none of the 'employees' living there actually personally own anything (other than their share of the company). Of course it's all also the private property of the corporation, which exempts the grounds from laws which affect public behavor, like nudity laws.

I have several other systems too, which fit well together. I wasn't stopping at the community level of granularity, but rather imagined a system of communism where every participant was an independent contractor, graded on their chosen services by those they interact with over internet phones. I could go in great depth about how stragglers are handled and cronyism is prevented, but that's the gist of the system. The communiy would vote on what resources (like cable tv or a space program) to foster, and elect contractors to administrate such public services. Those elected would in turn use their voted budget of 'play money' to hire the best contractors they could afford under budget. All contractors (citizens) have the same take-home wages. The play-money is only for efficient administrative allocation.

Surely you've heard me rant this whole scheme two or three times by now over the years. Doing it as a corporation was the last bridge idea some years back which made it possible in today's reality.

You got me to thinking the other night that I could set my sights on getting controlling stock in US, USSR, and Chinese defense mfgrs (have to make things fair) to force them into creating aerial intrcontinental bullet trains and global sustainable power systems instead. There's a huge difference though between being a privately owned (yet still half communal) $50M/yr instrumunt mfgr (within my sights), and buying out half of $20B/yr defense companies.

I should taper the debate down. I have much December agenda to rush on.

"On the same page" That's where our hope lies now. The Vietnam era model of a protest gathering strength against the perceived incumbent conservative right failed this time around, probably because it turns out they weren't any more incumbent than the left this time around, if you had an informed heart to heart talk on their values.

For what it's worth, the left has actually adopted some right-wing concepts. The grass-roots act-locally thing has taken prcedence over the global equality thing, now that the US lower class is threatened with falling to 3rd world poverty levels at the hands of globalists.

The only thing consistent about the left is that it seems to stand for opposing the status quo and supporting the underdog. The whole american public is coming to realize that we are all the underdog now.

I don't doubt that our kind of free society advances more technically. Pragmatics are easier to define than virtue, but exterminating unproductive citizens could be pragmatically advantageous too, though certainly not ethical by most anyones standards.

Generally speaking, ethically enlightened societies that respect individual rights but balance that out with some form of collective force (taxes, welfare, schools, etc) positively correlate with technological advancement. Sure, there are exceptions, the Romans were advanced for their time, but not very virtuous. The NAZIS were very technologically advanced yet not very moral. But generally speaking, that tends to be the case.


I haven't figured out the extradition part yet. It would probably be like international extradition is now, with many seperate agreements, and quite a mess.

My point exactly. More to the point, getting something like that up would require already existing nation states to voluntarily enter this arrangement. I have a feeling that most Islamic countries won't take you up on your offer to dissolve their legal system but you also expect that the US and Western European countries to do so. Just like unilateral disarment, it most likely won't happen and wouldn't even be fair. Would you also be in favor of legalizing separatist societies to form, eg: white supremacists keeping anyone they don't like out of certain land areas. That would pretty much go against every federal Civil Rights enacted, reversing decades worth of progress. As if education wasn't dividing the rich and the poor enough, your system would really cause it to happen.

People have fought for centuries for the rights that we enjoy today, feminists, abolitionists, free market activists, hell even socialists contributed a lot to social progress (I reluctantly type those words). Your idea will undo centuries worth of progress and be a slap in the face to all the rights activists. Sorry, I just don't want radical Islamic or Amish values spreading into the US legal system. Its bad enough that moderate Muslims have to deal with radical Islam in the Middle East. Its bad enough that Europe tolerates them and bad enough that we tolerate the Amish here.

Besides, it would be a pain in the ass to go through a check point every time I want to go visit Mississippi or Texas. For some things, having the federal government have more power than the states and local governments is a good thing, in spite of their retarded anti-drug laws. Under your utopia, I don't think Topeaka, Kansas would be where it is today.




I answered the punishment question in an earlier response of this post. Community evolution will still work things out. I suppose it's possible that a community of pure criminal terrorists could evolve too, like the dark forest thievery clans in Grimms tales, but other communities would evolve and develop treaties to handle those folks when they invaded turf too.

I think that one Civil War per country is enough. Abe Lincoln had an answer to your scenario. Besides, as if Uncle Sam hadn't had enough headaches dealing with the KKK, organized crimes, the Crips and the Bloods, your Timothy McVeighs and other anti-government wackjobs, you now want to give them sovereignty? Sure, you could use "world opinion" to limit their damage, but why not use the government that we already have.




I think the with the divorces they'd both be stuck with whatever countries law they got married in, unless they had both moved together to a new community. Even now gays may be tempted to move to a country that recognizes benefits to their marriage before getting married. You can't expect Utah to recognize and administrate their divorce later though.

Bingo! As if the headache won't be big enough dealing with the different laws we have now with gay marriage, wait until we let Little China and Little India form their own marriage laws.



I compare my life as child to the rights my own children have, and it's become fairly grim. They can't do things like build tree houses the way we could. 1950's kids chemistry sets would have the feds knocking on your door, and DVD's of early Sesame Street episodes are now labeled 'adult content'.

Using anidodal evidence won't help your case. Sure, some laws today are retarded that they didn't have back in the 1950's, but lets not pretend that the 1950's didn't have retarded laws that don't exist today. I am not pretending that our current system is perfect, but overall, we are way freer than we ever were.



My ideas are quite thought out. It's not all that complicated. It's simply a return to the local communes of centuries past.

There are probably very good reasons why we don't do that anymore. Caveat: anytime there was something done centuries ago and suddenly its no longer done, chances are there were good rationals for doing away with it. Next week: we'll discuss why feudalism was a bad idea and why the modern republic is a better system.

Besides, I am sure you've heard of a thing called a town charter.



The only part that is complicated is that all land is owned mutually by individuals and civil jurisdictions now. My system might require that Jerome, AZ incorporate neighboring Cottonwood, AZ when the grass smoking population increased there, or those who believed in the communist-like city-hall participation of Acadia, CA expanded borders there too, until perhaps all No. Cal. had adopted that system.

That would be VERY complicated, since communists are very rare these days. Even socialists admit you need some mechanism of private property. You would also have to relocate a lot of people since people of different ideologies tend to live scattered everywhere. Little Grannie who happens to live in neighborhood X might not want to wake up the next day under the rule of some weird community and she might not wish to relocate.

Assuming that communism would actually spread like you claim it would be, you would at some point require forcing people to move or adopt. What if I don't want to give up my house or move. Would you use eminent domain on me in order for your ideology to work.



I will be back to your other half of the post but unfortunately I have stuff to do.

If a rich person bought a bunch of land and built his own little town, (with his own rules) but only people he personally invited could live in it, would you be in favor of that?

That would ALMOST work, but then you would still need to follow state, local, and federal laws. So where would you send the kids of the people you invited to school. Any segregated school wouldn't get the credentials to be an accredited private school and the law mandates going to school.

Besides, theres the issue of property taxes. A town's worth of land will cost like A LOT in terms of property taxes that you would have to pay. And it would have to be you, not the people who live there, otherwise it would count as either an illegal gift or them actually living there.

How would they know it was segregated? Who would raise a stink? People who weren't allowed to live in that little town?

I don't get it... They would actually live there. (And what is an "illegal gift"?)