"All we like sheep have gone astray.": the relationship of the American people to their government. How many of you want a good shepherd to lead you? There's too little of rugged American individualism and distrust of big government and big business, today. It's too easy to be led, not question.

Most people don't know what is occurring politically and how it will affect their lives. Most of you don't seem to care; it's just too much to put up with. We would rather have an illusion of security than freedom.

Do you understand that your rights precede government and law, that individual rights are the basis for the existence of legitimate government? Do you know how many you have? Do you care how many rights we've lost? Does it matter as long as your pocketbook is full and you can conspicuously consume to your heart's content? You appear to care more about having nice homes, SUVs, DVD players, etc., than you care about freedom and justice.

No government can exist without the support of the majority of the people, whether it be monarchical, dictatorial or democratic. That support may be from active involvement or fear. People may respect or acquiesce to power. It's simply a matter of belief. But a responsible government must respect the people and be instituted to benefit them.

Rights limit the power of government over the individual. This was a brilliant idea - that there are areas of life where government and laws must not intrude - it's not their business. Government exists to protect our property, privacy and our national health, and to provide redress of grievances and justice among us. Beyond that government must not go or it becomes tyrannical. Government is a very bad parent. Otherwise, we have the freedom and responsibility to provide for and protect ourselves. To go to government expecting it to protect you from the trials of everyday life or asking for a handout is to give your power to it and be subordinate to it and be a beggar and a victim or reduced to the status of dependent child.

Most of you are not free because you don't understand freedom - what it is to be free in your minds, hearts, souls, bodies. Freedom is not first a political state of being, but an attitude of psychological or even spiritual freedom. You must first be internally free to be politically free. A society must have a sufficient number of these free individuals to have and maintain political freedom. If you are free you are not intimidated by the freedom of others expressing their different views and behaviors. You don't feel that everyone must follow your beliefs or that their's are a threat to you. Freedom is having self-confidence, not fearing to act or feeling repressed. Freedom is expansive, not restrictive of anyone and grants a diversity to life. Freedom even requires chaos, and that uncertainty is why it scares so many people. But chaos is a natural part of life that we can't avoid and so must accept.

The legacy of our religions and cultures are predominately opposed to individual freedoms. There is always some justification and rationalization of taboos, mores, social control that in reality have no basis in fact, but they are a way for some people to maintain power over others. We are indoctrinated from the day of our birth in these unfree, repressive, restrictive ideologies.

If there is fear of freedom and hatred of those who are free, fear and hatred of joy, fear of and lack of love in our hearts, this is a perversion. Disapproval can become so great that it is a violation of others rights by not respecting their right to believe and act, thereby denying them free choice.

Wanting to have power over others is the prime manifestation of internal unfreedom. It originates in feelings of fear, insecurity and inferiority. To compensate, one wants to feel superior and acts it out in society and politics. But don't lose hope; there is a cure.

Freedom is far more important than business success and making money. Freedom is more important than democracy. With more individual rights protecting freedom there is a lesser need for democracy because differences would not need to be defined in law.

Some of you will ask, what is the good of freedom if you're starving or diseased and can't afford food or health care? Surely there must be some compromises? Musn't freedom and security be balanced? Well, yes, but absolute security is impossible and most security measures only limit freedom of the secured by paranoid and imprecise totalitarian practices. You have the responsibility to provide for your personal security, therefore you restrict only yourself. The government provides for the nation. And isn't freedom limited by the needs and conflict of rights that a large population produces? It shouldn't because freedom reduces conflicts; it is the proliferation of laws that limit freedom, and why should there be a large population if it restricts freedom? Is the number of people more important than freedom?

Americans like to think that we live in the world's most liberal and progressive democracy, but that hasn't been true for a long time. Other countries, especially in Europe, have surpassed us in expanding human rights and legal protections. In reality, America is a very conservative country and always has had a difficult time reconciling constitutional protections and ideals with religious beliefs and ingrained prejudices. The Founding Fathers were more liberal, in the old sense, meaning tolerant and farseeing, than most of us are today. We're too smug and too self-centered to bother about our effects on the rest of the world. We export far more American imperialism than democratic and human rights ideals. Therefore, we meddle in the affairs of other nations for our benefit rather than the public good.

Why has the physical/sexual body been the site of political and social control? You have a right to do anything you wish with your body, to participate in consensual sex with anyone, commit suicide, smoke, even to possess, manufacture, sell and use drugs or distill your own liquors, marry anyone of any gender. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong or whether it good for you or detrimental; that moral decision should be left to individuals to decide for themselves. We who make up society have no collective right to interfere with such individual decisions. And no one has the legitimate, moral authority to prevent your exercise of these rights. These areas of life do not belong in the purview of government, also meaning the collective "we, the people". In these cases the authority of existing law is illegitimate and tyrannical. But using drugs or participating in consensual sex can't be a criminal act because there is no violation of another's rights, therefore no victim. The laws that constrict this right are immoral and have taken away your right to self-fulfillment or self-destruction. These laws exist only to accrue power to a few and promote social controls over the many.

We do not need a paternal government nor the puritanical moralism of the past influencing our laws. Paternal government takes away our self-reliance and initiative and personal responsibility.

Our puritanism is a search for security that makes risk-taking and enjoyment suspect. But there's no gain without risk. Would you rather live an enjoyable, but short life or a long, but dull one? And no one can guarantee either, but shouldn't we have that choice?

American politics isn't any longer based on preserving and promoting individual liberty and rights, but in balancing power among competing interest groups.

There's a lot of people in this country who want a class system and its privileges. They want to belong to an aristocracy to rule and handle wealth, to feel superior than the majority of people, and have that dictated by law. Then, only they will have the freedom and license that comes with political power. This is the legacy of the South in American politics.

Government, meaning the bureaucrats and politicians, have their own interests, not always in accord with the wishes of the people and not necessarily within it. Both insiders want to protect their jobs and perquisites - their power. This is at odds with democracy.

The government privilege of eminent domain is too broad. It isn't a right, but the power of government interests to take away private property without just compensation in the name of the public good. If you don't accept the government offer, it will condemn your property and seize it or pay you a pittance. The same applies to asset forfeiture in drug and some other crimes. Assets can be seized before the suspect is declared guilty and sentenced, a clear moral wrong if there ever was one. The principle of eminent domain is constitutional, provided there is just compensation, but its current implementation is not, despite rulings by the courts that tend to support government positions. If we let this practice go on our rights to property are in jeopardy.

The U.S. Constitution is written in language that strongly suggests that what isn't specifically forbidden must be allowed, but allowed or permitted isn't the right definition because that means an authority must give permission and no authority is granted that power except the individual who has that right. No permission is required. The ninth amendment states that we have other rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. But the conservative Supreme Court seems to overlook that amendment and offers "strict interpretation" by not granting any other rights. Strict constructionists, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, will tell you that the Constitution must be interpreted in the way of the Founding Fathers. What bullshit! The writings of the Founding Fathers demonstrate that they knew better. Some parts of the Constitution are very clear and resist interpretation, other parts require interpretation, especially in the context of the times, as the founders intended. These conservatives have no philosophical leg to stand on, only prejudice, especially fear of freedom.

I interpret that the Supreme Court is in violation of the Constitution that it was instituted to uphold when it says that certain groups (gays) or practices (sexual acts and porn) do not have constitutional protection. Because these are not specifically excluded the Court cannot legally rule on them under the equal protection clause. That clause makes everyone equal, no matter what differences thay may have, and subject to equal treatment under law; no discrimination or denial of rights to anyone for whatever reasons not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are allowed. The Supreme Court cannot deny this without making itself suspect.

Our government is in gross violation of the Constitution. Our rights have been usurped. The government's authoritarian position in interpreting laws or promoting new laws restricting individual freedoms in the name of "law and order" and "national security" is given priority in the courts. Laws that were temporary measures passed in the crisis of wartime have persisted to give the government extraordinary illegal powers over our lives. Many of those laws were not legal even then. Most of us don't realize how our freedoms have been eroded away because most of us don't know and understand the law. This usurpation began over a century ago, was accelerated by World Wars I and II and institutionalized in the cold war. The result of this is government emergency edicts to suspend constitutional protections, in itself unconstitutional.

Those cold war liberals really weren't liberals at all, but authoritarians and paternalistic government advocates who believed in the power of a strong, centralized government. Theirs' was a paranoid condition. Preserving freedom and human rights wasn't their goal, but fostering American preeminence in the world.

Life isn't fair, but there's good reasons to try to create fairness in society by law. This allows everyone to rise to their level of competence. But equality cannot be created by law because we are not equal and we don't want to be, otherwise we would be clones of one person, stamped out on an assembly line.

Why shouldn't law be required to apply equally to all citizens? The Constitution guarantees us equal protection under law, so shouldn't that suggest that laws must be applied equally and that should exclude laws that apply only to some people? Shouldn't federal law cover everyone equally? If so, then why can Congress pass laws that favor only some people (private bills)? Laws that favor some people give them advantages and potentially hurt others. This should be seen as a violation of equal protection. It highlights a conflict between states rights and federal law. Why should there be some laws that only apply to some of the people in one nation? Some specific local conditions may apply that require laws unique to that locality, just as there need to be local governments and representation so that there is responsiveness to people where they live. Other than this exception, federal laws should be applicable to everyone equally.

We have been experiencing a creeping, bureaucratic totalitarianism, you might even facetiously call it a "kinder and gentler totalitarianism", that is a combination of increasing government police powers and business control over society, enforced by a conservative Supreme Court that has whittled away our rights by giving business and government interests preeminence. When a citizen must oppose government he is at a serious disadvantage. The arguments supporting this increase of government power range from national security to the conditions of life in a complex society, of which most are spurious, only rationalizing and covering up the greed for raw power. Even the philosophy of knowledge - categorizing and analyzing everything has led to an increasing regimentation of society, bringing every form of human behavior under some form of observation and control, therefore politicizing it.

I often wonder why most of you trust our government or any government even if your prefered party is in power. The older and larger that governments grow the more corrupt and untrustworthy they become. It's the nature of the beast. Governments have the power to lie to us and cover it up; they have power over our lives and deaths. They can carry out projects in secrecy that may be detrimental to the society just because they have the resources and the temptation to use them is too great. It may do so in the "national interest" for security concerns or to protect its own members interests if they make mistakes or break laws. Government is very good at covering its ass. This does not mean that it always will, but it has and will probably in the future. Is it easier to trust without knowledge and just let events have their sway? A moderate mistrust of government and any large institution is healthy.

If there were a coup to take power over our government would our military defend the Constitution? The United States Military Oath is to defend the Constitution, not the government or any leader. Can they be trusted to do the right thing? During the preliminary to the Watergate investigation certain military leaders were worried that Nixon might misuse his powers or attempt a coup and were ready to arrest him. So, there is recent precedent for trusting our military. It is ostensibly under civilian control and not allowed political power, as have militaries in countries that have suffered many repressive poitical revolutions.

Why does government and business want you to be educated to a basic level, to read and write? It's so you can be employable, work, earn and consume - to create wealth and power for them. But they don't want you to have too much education so that you understand how society and politics work, or to be capable of analysis, critique, especially to think for yourself.

Our government should be one of the smallest in the world.

Living in a goldfish bowl: I know how to solve the problem of privacy rights. If business and government can collect information on us, then why can't we have access to information about them? Let's have an open society of busybodies where there is no privacy and we can spy on each other to our heart's content.

Why don't we have another revolution? I guess it's just too much trouble.

Democracy isn't fair. It's not fair that a 51% majority can decide policy over the objections of a 49% minority. That is tyranny. We need parliamentary democracy with proportional representation. Many political parties offering representation of many positions and representatives elected according to a percentage of support would be a better solution. It builds a coalition government that more fairly represents our needs and wants. Our President has too much power; better he/she be a figurehead. A Prime Minister would be better. And that a government administration can fail due to lack of confidence and elections be immediately called is a very good thing.

The ancient Greeks understood that democracy is impossible unless among equals. It takes informed, responsible people to participate in democracy.

Democracy is a collectivist ideal, not an individualist one.

Alexis de Tocqueville, in "Democracy in America", warned us in the early 19th century that democracies eventually degenerate into tyranny. How much longer can it last in America?

When most conservatives say they want to get government out of your life, they're lying. They may want to give the private sector more economic freedom at your expense, but they want control over your body, especially sexuality, often enforcing one traditional religious view on everyone. And they want to spend your money on their repressive social agendas and national security.

Conservatism is social recession, or is it regression?

When most liberals say they want to give you more civil liberties, it's with more group laws and regulations, giving more power to government, rather than recognizing and enforcing the rights you already have. And they'll spend your money to do it.

If conservatives were principled they would be ardent conservationists.

Why was liberal allowed to become a vilified and derogatory term? The conservative right capitalized on the ignorance of the population who had little concept of the term, twisted its usage to gain their power and took a perfectly good word and concept away from the people. This abuse of language is an attempt at thought control to capture the direction of public discourse and debate. They did not want a public examination and discussion of the merits of liberalism vs. conservatism because that might undermine the conservative agenda.

Originally, liberal meant so much more than the current definitions of social welfare ascribed to Democratic Party politics. It was a social ideology opposed to a religious traditionalism that enforced a social conformity as the one right way to live, and the highly individualistic, almost social Darwinist, classical conservatism. It promoted tolerance for other viewpoints and behaviors, but tolerance can be a condescending behavior that suggests disapproval, rather than open acceptance or approval, and that was one of its philosophical weaknesses in that it idealized human behavior. Liberalism was an open, public spirited mindset that questioned the role of society to make life better for individuals - maximizing the public good through intelligent use of benevolent government.

Conservatives characterized liberalism as wasteful, big spending social policy, but examination of conservative regimes spending often belies this critique; conservatives spend large amounts of public funds on other programs, primarily defense and other private sector institutions. Liberals tend to spend more on public sector social programs.

As a philosophy, liberalism was characterized as permissive, a danger to the social body because it failed to discipline the young to traditional social beliefs and values. Permissiveness was the dreaded bugaboo of social conservatives in the 1960s that would lead to the disruption and decline of civilization. It was secular humanist, that atheistic ideology and relativist morality so feared by traditionalists. For them, this philosophy had no ultimate authority dictated by a big nobodaddy in the sky, and that was its central problem. This conservative critique is no more than very rarified air or a thin-skinned thought bubble, for they have no more proof of their beliefs than any flight of imagination.

Conservatives also feared liberalism as a collectivist conception that might lead to totalitarian government, i.e., Communism, as opposed to their belief in a private system, but they could not see the thorn of a potentially tyrannical socially imposed traditionalism in their own eyes.

The debate between conservatism and liberalism has been one of the belief in the perfectability or non-perfectability of humans, whether humans are inherently good and must be free to actualize it or whether good behavior must be imposed by law and coercion. Both seem to be wrong because they can't even agree on what good behavior is or that any human can be good enough to enforce it.

The word "conservative" was long ago corrupted. Now it means traditionalist or reactionary and has no respect for the rights and freedom of choice of individuals that was the glory of classical conservatism. Conservatism now means social control of individual morality and behavior.

It's also a war between visions of society, an inclusive, egalitarian one or an aristocratic, stratified one. Contradictions abound, each has an elitist vision; meritocratic in liberalism, or the superior individual in conservative myth. If liberalism is viewed as anti-individualist because of its collectivist, cooperativist social theory, why do its conclusions tend to support more individual rights, while conservatism's individualist theory embeds that individual in an inflexible, status-based society? Each sees government as a useful instrument of social policy, but disagrees where that should be applied, so both are coercive in different aspects of society and restrict individual freedoms accordingly.

The right still sees the world as the center of the universe, with God in His heaven - largely a medieval view. Their analyses of society and politics are traditional and can't deal with modern problems. Any progressive analyses are from the left, mostly Marxists, who have their own biases and blindness, especially the theory that history is a force. It could be said that the right doesn't have analysis, only doctrine, because it does not evolve into new theory.

We've done the wrong thing in promoting group rights based on existing conditions, i.e., race, religion, sex, etc., rather than individual behaviors. Groups cannot have rights, only individuals can, and this groupthink creates conflicts of interests and rights. Every time a group of individuals can gain power by collective will it can collectively lobby government for redress of grievances and get laws passed to give it the protections its individual members already have if only the laws implementing protection of individual rights are enforced without prejudice. The result gives the group the power of law over the rights of individuals, an extremely unfair situation. And it puts the group power into the hands of the politicians who gave it the laws, therefore the group is beholden to government and becomes subordinate to it. But if you're not a member of a government recognized group you're in trouble. Only enforcement of individual rights laws can protect everyone and without the need of one new law. What we should do is to remove all discriminatory laws from the books and simply look to the constitutional premise of equal protection. That means that the government can't recognize any differences among us in law. And why should it? What business should government have with our private lives? The law should be designed so that government is incapable of recognizing personality. Justice can only be served when we are absolutely equal and perhaps even interchangeable in its gaze.

Under this premise, any vote to discriminate against or disenfranchise any citizen or group thereof, is unconstitutional, as are any laws that institute discrimination against anyone. This includes votes over gay rights ordinances and gay marriage. We do not have a right to discriminate in public law against anyone. Such laws are unconstitutional. However, we do have the right to discriminate individually and privately, as we do anyway, that is part of the right of freedom of association.

Some people believe that discrimination against other people is an ordained duty and a right, often from a religious perspective. Individually, they do have that right, but no one has any right to institute discrimination in law. Representatives of some groups will offer reasons to deny rights to others, but they will deny discrimination. They are lying. Those same folk are usually the ones who also believe in the inferiority of women and are usually the enemies of any broad social equality.

That gays are prevented from serving in the military unless they are silent about what they are is unconstitutional; only prejudice determines and enforces the laws preventing full service. Any arguments to the contrary only reveal rationalization and justification of prejudice.

I have no respect for national sovereignty; it's a concept that's outlived its usefulness. States and nations aren't important, only people are.

Should we respect the sovereignty of nations under dictators? Should a tyrant be accorded respect because he is a nation's leader? I don't think so, and neither should you. Traditionally, we accord respect to a legitimate political position and to the person that holds it. But positions do not necessarily confer respect on the individuals who fill them, only those who deserve respect. Respect must be earned.

Dictators are moral morons. Tyrants shouldn't be allowed to exist because they're dangerous to human life. Do we offer a disease organism the benefit of the doubt? No, we aggressively attempt to destroy it. It's pure cowardice that the progressive nations will allow tyrants to exist anywhere in the world. It is our moral duty to destroy them and make the world hostile to their creation. Dictatorship should be hazardous to a dictator's health. Sic semper tyrannus: "so it is with tyrants", not death to tyrants, as the phrase is so often erroneously translated. We could easily create a climate inimical to tyrants by declaring their lives forfeit and by supporting, rewarding and celebrating anyone who will assassinate an internationally recognized tyrant. I believe the phrase is "Terminate with extreme prejudice".

The US has never had a sterling moral compass. We've lost the respect for the ideals of human rights and democratic values. We should be upholding these above all else to the rest of the world. There's a long black history of our abuse of power. We ignored the recent genocides in Rawanda and Somalia. Or earlier, Nixon, Kissinger and CIA director trying to subvert the Chilean democracy in 1970 to prevent socialist Salvador Allende becoming president, then successfully supporting the coup that toppled him 3 years later that allowed Augusto Pinochet to rule as a brutal dictator for 15 years. Did you know that the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor early enough to have stopped it? And these are only a few examples of a policy of political interference, especially in Mexico, Latin America, Cuba and the Phillipines that began before we were a nation. First, there were the Indian wars and genocide, breaking treaties with them. What do you think about it? Do you care?

The so-called liberal cold warriors of post-WWII weren't really liberal, but the most paranoid of authoritarians of a paternal government. How many other sovereign governments have we subverted in the name of cold-war paranoia or to promote the supremacy of American business? Don't you realize that's why many Latin American countries were called "Banana republics"? - all because of good ol' American United Fruit Company exploiting cheap labor. It's been our way before the Spanish American War - another meddling cause. Now, do you understand why other countries accuse us of American imperialism? We are the modern incarnation of ancient Rome taken to a higher level.

And look at what we are reaping now - the fruits of our mideast policies. It was the good ol' USA that first funded Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. We set the stage in Iran for the Ayatollah and his fundamentalist Islamic revolution by undermining the democratic Mossadeh, raising up the Shah Raza Pahlavi, who with his secret police made life a terror for many good Iranian citizens. Oh yeah, he was made to look good in American media and we were made to think that he was a benevolent aristocrat and friend to his people and us. And now our raptors are coming home to roost and feed on our flesh.

Why have we allowed Cuba to retain its dictatorship under Castro for over a decade since the Soviet Union and its threat to us collapsed? There must be a better reason than respecting national sovereignty or the opinions of other nations - that hasn't restrained us before. So, we must look at why it is convenient for our government to allow Castro to govern. Is it a waiting game? A convenient propaganda generator? Castro is old. When he dies there will certainly be another revolution, and you can be sure that we will be in control of it. Currently, it's a political goldmine inside and outside the nation. What other nefarious reasons might there be to allow Cubans to suffer and who benefits?

We've allowed Milosevich and Saddam Hussein and many petty dictators, all abusers of human rights, to exist when we knew of their atrocities. Then, we are complicit in their evil deeds.

You will find tyrants behind pulpits, behind the seemingly benevolent faces of public service officials, schoolteachers, businessmen, et al. Their kind believe that they are doing good when they are doing evil.

Even before America was attacked, ostensibly by the Taliban supported Osama bin Laden, I could not agree to allowing their existence. We allowed the Taliban to exist I suppose out of respect of Islam or for some more nefarious political purpose, but we do not have a relevant moral position. There are sometimes false religions and negative spirituality against which we must take a stand. The Taliban have murdered, tortured, persecuted believers of other religions, made women almost chattel slaves and created a totalitarian society that is worse than living under Stalin. They have hidden behind Islam to protect their evil. They should be brought to justice and their falsehoods exposed.

Should we implement a new form of warfare by assassination? Only leaders, generals, politicians would be targeted. Cut off the head, and the body wouldn't survive. It would eliminate much of the collateral damage and it would be far cheaper.

Torturers know that torture isn't an effective method of getting information and they also know that it is an effective psychological political weapon; that's why it's still used. Governments torture to induce fear and to punish before the fact. It must be common knowledge that a government will use torture, even if it denies it.

It appears that politics attracts only scoundrels today. The good people don't attempt it, perhaps because they know that their scruples doom any chance that they might win or that it's distasteful. Most people enter politics to make a change, but the temptation to corruption is very great - the system's standard operating proceedure. Politicians want the limelight, power and privileges of office, but those are very bad reasons to be a politician. Do they want to be celebrities? I am curious as to why we think that our politicians should have perks and privileges. Why can't we devise laws that make political office only a public service having no advantages over any other job?

Let's limit the power of our politicians over our lives. They're supposed to be public servants and our employees, yet we and they act as if they were our superiors and rulers, or else we ignore them and their effects on our lives. Why do we put up with it? Shouldn't politicians be limited by laws that instruct and guide them in what they must do and musn't do? They have too much freedom of office without the requirement of responsibility. Holding office is a privilege and service, not a right to rule. We should tell them how to vote, not they, us. Yet, they do have a constitutional right to vote contrary to the wishes of their constituents because they may be better informed on the issues or may have the wider view of the national good in mind. This was the ideal of a republic the founders of our nation hoped for, unfortunately, it is not often respected. It's time we limited the power of the legislatures to pass laws without consulting us. We must also take away the perks and privileges of office so that only those dedicated to serving the public good will run for office. Even the president might be considered a lower form of life than the average citizen.

Politicians should be held to a higher standard of legal behavior, should be held legally accountable for the laws they pass, especially unconstitutional ones, and be made responsible for those hurt by bad law, for they are protectors of laws, and if they fail to uphold the law they should face stiffer penalties than most citizens, for example, not allowed to hold any political office anywhere or even not allowed a job higher than streetsweeper for the rest of their lives. We should implement a zero tolerance policy for politicians and bureaucrats.

Legislators should be required to read all bills in full before they vote on them. It would prevent much bullshit being made into law.

Should politicians be allowed to have public opinions?

It might be a better system if politicians weren't elected, but drafted by lottery from the general population, just as in jury duty. That way everyone has a fair chance to serve. Only a few extenuating circumstances would excuse those selected from duty. Unlike jury duty, we should pay these drafted politicians a living wage.

Should prospective officeholders be required to pass certain psychological and knowledge tests before they can run for office? Candidates should be required to truthfully state their beliefs and be given third degree questioning. After all, it's for their beliefs that we elect them. As public officials, they must not have hidden or private agendas.

Do you remember those instances of elections of dead candidates to office because there wasn't time to remove their names from the ballots? There shouldn't be anything unusual about this. We've been electing dead people to office as long as the country has existed. There are many dead politicians holding office. It seems to be a national institution.

Congress can vote to raise its pay and our taxes. I don't know of any other institution or business where employees can give themselves raises and take it from their bosses without their permission. Congressional pay and tax raises should be taken out of Congress hands and given to public referendum.

Certain rules of the House and Senate that were not constitutionally provided for, but were adopted by those bodies to enhance the power of those chambers and their members and have become traditionally enshrined, should be eliminated. The fillibuster would be a good place to start, then only allowing amendments to a bill relevant to its main purpose, so that no extraneous amendments could be added that might sneak through the lawmaking process.

Perhaps we should throw out all incumbent officeholders and start afresh.

Our Warped Elections

Election day should be a national holiday so that everyone can afford the time to vote. Perhaps most businesses should be closed so that people wouldn't be distracted by shopping.

Why should the President, who must represent all of us, be allowed to campaign for his party? Shouldn't that office, being unique, leave partisan politics behind? And why should president and vice-president be required to be elected from the same party?

Elections are media circuses that finance the media and politicians. Shouldn't elections and political campaigns be publicly funded? After all, they're a part of the public life and shouldn't be influenced by private interests except where those meet in the individual citizen. It would eliminate special interests and level the playing field.

Private funding of political campaigns is considered a right, but it is a right in conflict with our right to have fair elections. When rich candidates and their supporters can buy their elections there is no fairness. Elections, being a public process, should be funded with public funds distributed fairly and equally among the candidates. Then, only the qualities inherent in the candidates can be used in judgment for or against them.

All federal political primaries should be held on the same day to prevent influence of one state's results on another. In some states all resident citizens may vote in any party's primary, in others, only registered party members. This inherent unfairness skews the election process. In the digital age of instant communication, primaries are an anachronism. Perhaps they should be abolished alltogether.

If you don't vote, why should you have representation? Should a null vote count? When people choose not to vote is that not a vote against an issue or all candidates or a vote of no confidence? If less than 50% of registered voters vote should an election be valid? Should we be required to vote?

etc...

We need to build a stronger public sector to foster participation in democracy. With the conservative, business-oriented climate of the past 20 years, the public sector has withered away and our freedoms with it. There exists an intent among some conservatives and business leaders to destroy the public sector and bring all aspects of our lives under the private control of a few elites.

We need to find better ways to limit the concentration of political power within a few small groups and redistribute that power throughout the population.

Bureaucrats primarily protect their jobs and their institutions, only secondarily do they serve the people.

We've had far too few leaders who led us into new moral territory. Most of our leaders support a status quo or backsliding and could hardly be called moral leaders. They're barely followers. We need the likes of Martin Luther King, Baba Ram Dass, Ralph Nader, et al, elected to positions of power.

Congressional redistricting is a political disgrace. The parties use it to gerrymander districts to their advantage. Why isn't this illegal? Because district size is based on population, a computer program could make the assignments simply and quickly without regard to political bias.

Congress should recess for several years.

Have you ever noticed that when the government had to shut down because it ran out of funds that nothing bad happened, that life went on just as it had every day? What does this tell you?

"There's no government like no government."

Contents