Your replies are not a reaction to what I posted (the 10 things), most of it are just generalisations/slogans.

>Because to think that democracy can
>actually cover everyone and give
>full power to the people
>is unrealistic.

Then what do you suggest ? Only power to 'enlightened' people (such as yourself ?), who know what's best for the ignorant masses ?

There are many different ways in which 'power to the people' can be translated to reality. But you're not even considering the possibility of that. You're not even willing to consider searching for those various ways.

>People are
>individuals, and have individual thoughts
>and ideas through nature.

Yes, but at the same time people have things in common too. Democracy doesn't mean that everything should be catered to every single wish of every single person. Of course that's impossible ... suppose I want a green road and you want a yellow road ... chances are nothing happens that way.

That's not the point here, but I think you're deliberately exaggerating or ridiculising the topic to avoid having to answer it.

>Democracies only protect the majority.
>But what about the
>minority? What about the
>individual?

Democracies don't only protect the majority. Maybe they do in your definition, but then you need to re-evaluate things. And how about the 'minorities' today ? How about individuals today ?

Today things are like this : a MINORITY of a few rich countries exploits a MAJORITY of poor workers in plenty of countries. Sounds much better than actual democracy, right ?

>>2)
>>The American people should have reasonable
>>control over the public lands,
>>public media airwaves, pension funds,
>>and other societal assets which
>>the public legally owns, rather
>>than having these public assets
>>controlled by a powerful few.
>
>Substitute public for GOVERNMENT. The
>GOVERNMENT should have control over
>the GOVERNMENT lands, media airwaves
>controlled by GOVERNMENT, pension funs,
>and other societal assets that
>the GOVERNMENT legally owns.

What's the problem if this 'government' (your choice of words) thruthfully and accurately represents the public ?

Meaning : a situation completely opposite to the one we know today, where the government represents private/corporate interest and uses the public to finance it.

No wonder people are sick of 'politics' (calling what exists today 'politics' is an insult to the actual meaning and origin of 'politea' anyway).

>The only thing public about
>that is that you will
>elect the representatives every couple
>of years. What, you
>think every time an issue
>comes up there is going
>to be a referendum?
>You'll have to go to
>the ballot box every single
>day. Good luck.

In your view : yes. Why should it be like that ? You only seem to consider one possibility, accidently (?) your view always seems the worst.

>Hence that mean that someone
>is going to be making
>the decisions for the public
>on whether or not to
>do this or do that.
>The public still has
>no power, other than to
>remove their representative whenever election
>time comes.

I'm not a fan of what you are suggesting, but at least it would include more democratic control than having companies with no elected managers whatsoever deciding what's happening with my taxes.

>>3)
>>We need modern mechanisms so that
>>civic power for self-government and
>>self-reliance can correct the often
>>converging power imbalance of Big
>>Business and Big Government that
>>weakens the rights of citizens.
>
>You're going to use Big Government
>to stop big government.
>Sure.
>The way you empower citizens is
>to actually reduce the power
>of government, not give it
>more power.

Funny, you don't seem to mind Big Business at all. You don't need to either, since Big Business = Big Government in reality. So I agree with you in a certain way : we definitely need to reduce the government's (in it's actual definition) power, which also means reducing that of Big Business.

>>4)
>>Citizens should have measures to ensure
>>that their voting powers are
>>not diluted, over-run, or nullified.
>>Such measures include easier voter
>>registration, state-level binding initiatives and
>>referendums, public financing of campaigns,
>>and term limits not to
>>exceed 12 years.
>
>Easier voter registration? How?
>You're going to make it
>easier for criminals and illegal
>immigrants to vote?

Where does it say what you mention ? Maybe Nader means that people won't be discouraged to register, cos they no longer have the impression that it doesn't matter anyway.

>Public financing campaigns limit freedom of
>speech. If you want to support a campaign by
>giving something out of your wallet, why
>shouldn't you be able to? Why should
>government be in control of
>how much support a candidate
>should have?

My guess is that Nader means that rich and powerfull candidates (or those with a programme that supports the values and privileges of the people in power, both political and economical) will always win when there's no limit to the money you spend : the richest candidate will not necessarily win everytime, but it won't really hurt him either.

Suppose Michael Johnson has to run barefooted on a glass track, while the other runners have the best sneakers on a hardcourt track ? Very fair indeed.

Presidential campaigns should be about the content of your programme, not how good you can criticize/marginalize/ridiculise other candidates or how much access to the media you got.

>*LOL* Here's what they are
>saying in lamen's terms:
>"The citizens of the United
>States are too lazy and
>stupid to understand the content
>of the law, so we
>are going to dumb down
>the working and context of
>the law so these poor
>simpletons can understand." Yeah.
> That's having good faith
>in the people.

I thought you would agree with that, seeing your remarks about how 'unworthy' some people are to vote ?

Seeing how much people a) are illiterate (or were denied access to a proper education) in your beatiful United States, and b) how juridic jargon can be so complicated that even lawyers need to read things at least three times, I think something like this makes sense.
It doesn't say people are stupid : it says 'a large number of people end up in jail cos they don't understand what is being said to them, and therefor can't defend themselves properly.' It's constructive self-criticism, and it offers an alternative.

Sounds much better to me than your 'it won't work, it's stupid, it's ignorant ...'

>There is a reason why citizens
>are not allowed full government
>access; it's called National Security.

Another name could be 'totalitarism', or 'misleading the public'.

If that same public finances things, why shouldn't it have access to what is being done with that money ?

>If the public can
>get access to it from
>the internet, then what makes
>you think enemies of the
>US won't either?

>With
>this Audience Network, you are
>encouraging people to turn against
>each other.

Well, at least it would be their individual choice to turn against one another. Not a choice made by government (in your definition) to set up people/communities against one another.

>>7)
>>Effective legal protections are needed for
>>ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans
>>to abuses or hazards to
>>health and safety in the
>>workplace, or contaminate the environment,
>>or defraud citizens. Such conscientious
>>workers need rights to ensure
>>they will not be fired
>>or demoted for speaking out
>>within the corporations, the government,
>>or in other bureaucracies.
>

>This whole idea REAKS of corruption.
>Blackmail, bribes, dirty money,
>favors, everything, especially if they
>are given immunity.

If you think every person is an egoistic and materialistic pig, then it will probably lead to corruption. You talk about 'THEY', which suggests you don't consider the possibility that you may one day be confronted with abuse, fraud, corruption and want to report it.

If people report an illegal activity, that shouldn't backfire on them, agree ? If they're blackmailing someone with the information they have, they are doing something illegal themselves, which means they'd of course no longer have immunity.
Next time, think before you type something.

>Also,
>who is going to set
>these standards? The government?

The public. Parties/candidates could include this in their programme, and have voters decide whether or not they agree.

>>8)
>>Working people need a reasonable measure
>>of control over how their
>>pension monies are invested, rather
>>than it being controlled by
>>banks and insurance companies.

>By controlling it through their private
>banks and companies they ARE
>given control.

I thought I was naive. I hope your bank and insurance company has a lot of customers like you, in that case they don't need to worry for the next 150 years.

Or ... do you work in one of these yourself ? That would explain a lot.

>*shaking head* Lamen's terms:
>"There are shareholders that are
>too stupid to understand when
>to jump off of a
>sinking ship, therefore government must
>rush in to save them."

When shareholders jump off that 'sinking' ship in time (as you suggest), it leaves the workers with no money & no job.
Some of these people may have worked for that company for 30 years, given the best they got, and are suddenly confronted with no money, no job and no perspective (cos they're too old for today's companies) while at the same time they may have a daughter going to college (so that she wouldn't have to struggle like her parents did).

Oh, they should probably have left the sinking ship in time too ?

>>10)
>>Our country's schoolchildren need to be
>>taught democratic principles in their
>>historic context and present relevance,
>>with practical civics experiences to
>>develop their citizen skills and
>>a desire to use them,
>>and so they will be
>>nurtured to serve as a
>>major reservoir of future democracy.
>
>Lamen's terms: "It is Government's
>job to indoctrinate the people's
>children in schools so that
>they may develop into the
>citizens we wish for them
>to be." A very
>common Communist tactic.

Uhm ... you actually descibed today's educational process, but you're probably not aware of it.
So you think we're all educated freely in schools today, not directed to one or another way ?

There's plenty of studies that show schools cater to and focus on middle class values, a specific work ethic and so on. That means that people who don't have these assets either adapt, or drop out.

Funny coincidence (?) is that what we learn in school happens to be very handy in today's capitalist system too. So kids in school today (and the past) are NOT educated, they are being prepared to keep the system running and to conform.

That's why an education/a degree/a diploma is a status symbol, it's a reward for conforming. It means you've been a good boy/girl, and the rewards will get bigger the more you conform.

Ready to work 70 hours a week in a bank that invests its money in nuclear weapons or for Shell in Nigeria ? You'll get paid, don't worry, but I get the impression that that's the real bribery : you get so much money to make you swallow any possible guilt.


You've said some very arrogant and ignorant things, and I'd suggest you never leave the US, cos you might be too shocked. As mke already put it, you've confirmed every stereotype known about fascist Americans.

Since you're unable to debate things in a polite and respectful way, I'm no longer replying to you.
Just like I don't debate with racists over here.


krewc


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'