Utopian States: Striving for Perfection

Is this the age of intolerance for beliefs and ideologies?   Frequently heard is the term “Zero Tolerance” spoken with conviction as if there is no other way.   Republicans think theirs is the only correct way.  Democrats think their ideology is the only way.  Many are intolerant towards Scientologists.  Muslims (some) are intolerant of Christians and Westerners.   Judges are intolerant of everyone that has beliefs different than the law or even their narrow interpretation of the law.  Gun lovers dislike those with no affection towards guns.  The police and government openly use and embrace terms of intolerance like felon and sex offender.  If you think that any of the above is OK, then you are probably one of the intolerant. 

In Washington, the Republicans and Democrats stay apart like oil and water.  They never vote on the same issues.  They always speak poorly of the other.  Democrats hate Bush and ridicule Sarah Palin.  Republicans ridicule Obama and Gore.  They fail to see their own intolerance as prejudice.  Our leaders fail to understand that they are not only acting in a bigoted way, but are in total acceptance of their own prejudiced behavior.

Prejudice is defined as:

1)    An adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

2)    An irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Ever hear people say a Liberal (or Conservative) believes blah-blah?   Or that a Liberal (or Conservative)  is blah-blah?   Those statements are irrational because the definitions of  Liberal (or Conservative) are different depending on viewpoint.  Each side has a different description of themselves than that painted by the intolerant party.  Republicans and Democrats are not people that believe in their own dogma, but people that have dogma chosen for themselves that are not supposed to alienate others of the party sufficiently to cause defection. 

People are made prejudiced by:

1)       Depersonalizing others or another group/party by calling them a name.

2)      Defining that name in an irrational or derogatory manner.

3)      Using that slur to describe your opponent in all future speech.

Hitler

Prejudice starts with our leaders.  Look no further than Nazi Germany or the Early government of America.  In fact, look throughout history at prejudice and you will find government leaders and Judges at the forefront of ALL prejudice.  Also understand that the people are the last to recognize the prejudices of their own governmental leaders.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States is the amendment that could lead to the entire USA being a Utopian Country.   Utopia requires a strong enumeration of rights and a government that thinks it’s their duty to protect the enumerated rights.

Americans have many rights that aren’t enumerated — such as the right to eat and breath.  More generally the non-enumerated rights would be the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The right to life could be further defined as the right to breath, eat, have shelter, have a family, have medical help, and to have an income in order to obtain the necessities of life.  The rights to liberty and the persuits of happiness would include the right to travel, read, talk, see movies, effect government, procure medical help, and to own property (including a firearm). 

The framers of the constitution argued against enumerating the rights for the reason that they did not want to forget to enumerate a right and thus have future governments and courts decide that that right wasn’t allowed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The following quote is from the Cornell Law University at the following link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10_user.html#amdt10_hd9

 “The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.”1 “The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”2 That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word “expressly” before the word “delegated,”3 and was confirmed by Madison’s remarks in the course of the debate which took place while the proposed amendment was pending concerning Hamilton’s plan to establish a national bank. “Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not[p.1510]given, Congress could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws, or even the Constitutions of the States.”4 Nevertheless, for approximately a century, from the death of Marshall until 1937, the Tenth Amendment was frequently invoked to curtail powers expressly granted to Congress, notably the powers to regulate commerce, to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and to lay and collect taxes.

Is it possible that we are given the right to elect NO GOVERNMENT?  Or that we can set up our own government?  With 50,000 laws being passed each year, it would be the preference of many to start from scratch with a clean slate.  As with computer programs, sometimes it’s easier to junk and old program that was built for another era and totally rewrite a new program.  Ditto for buildings.  Press the link to see sixteen buildings in China simultaneously demolished .

Demolition of Sixteen Buildings in China

 http://vidbunker.com/16_building_demolition_in_china

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/was-ross-perot-right.html

And so without further ado, let’s answer the question Clinton ducked: Was Ross Perot right?

In 1993, the Clinton White House and an army of corporate lobbyists were selling NAFTA as a way to aid Mexican and American workers.

Perot, on the other hand, was predicting that because the deal included no basic labor standards, it would preserve a huge “wage differential between the United States and Mexico” that would result in “the giant sucking sound” of American jobs heading south of the border. Corporations, he said, would “close the factories in the U.S. [and] move the factories to Mexico [to] take advantage of the cheap labor.”

 

The historical record is clear. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports, “Real wages for most Mexicans today are lower than when NAFTA took effect.” Post-NAFTA, companies looking to exploit those low wages relocated factories to Mexico. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of NAFTA was the elimination of 1 million American jobs.

Score one for Perot.

Since then we’ve had the trade agreements that Bush signed with China and others.

Lest you think that government knows what they are doing, consider this quote from page 56 of the July 2010 Discover Magazine on the article about “The Streetlight Effect”.

In 1992 a now-classic study by researchers at Harvard and the National Bureau of Economic Research examined papers from a range of economics journals and determined that approximately none of them had conclusively proved anything one way or the other.  Given that dismal assessment–and given the great influence of economists on financial institutions and regulation — it’s a wonder the global economic infrastructure is not in far worse shape.

The hypothesis that our economy could be straightened out by reversing all of the laws that Washington has written in the last 20 years (including the trade agreements) is worth study.

The Utopian States embraces all of these quotes about individual rights

All mankind… being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.
John Locke

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.
John Locke

Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.
John Locke

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.
John Locke

Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.
Thomas Jefferson

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.
Ronald Reagan

Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.
Kahlil Gibran

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
Ayn Rand

Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Ayn Rand

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Ayn Rand

Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property.
Ayn Rand

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
Ayn Rand

We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others.
Will Rogers

Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don’t give up the fight.
Bob Marley

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
Frederick Douglass

Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.
James Madison

The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.
James Madison

All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.
Andrew Jackson

As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.
Andrew Jackson

Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.
Calvin Coolidge

All initiation of force is a violation of someone else’s rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it’s supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals.
Ron Paul

The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
Ron Paul

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.
Samuel Adams

America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense human rights invented America.
Jimmy Carter

Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy, because human rights is the very soul of our sense of nationhood.
Jimmy Carter

At the Carter Center we work with victims of oppression, and we give support to human rights heroes.
Jimmy Carter

If we must die, we die defending our rights.
Sitting Bull

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.
Desmond Tutu

When the government violates the people’s rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties.
Marquis de Lafayette

We don’t need a weakened government but a strong government that would take responsibility for the rights of the individual and care for the society as a whole.
Vladimir Putin

Nobody and nothing will stop Russia on the road to strengthening democracy and ensuring human rights and freedoms.
Vladimir Putin

No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights.
Vladimir Putin

I don’t believe in quotas. America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights.
Clarence Thomas

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all.
Maximilien Robespierre

One great object of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities or encroaching upon their just rights.
James K. Polk

Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn’t even get out of committee.
F. Lee Bailey

If government can give you rights, government can take them away from you.
Roy Moore

Communities don’t have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights.
Michael Badnarik

But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.
Garrett Hardin

And government’s only role is to secure our rights for us.
Roy Moore

Material goods consist of useful material things, and of all rights to hold, or use, or derive benefits from material things, or to receive them at a future time.
Alfred Marshall

You don’t have to love them. You just have to respect their rights.
Edward Koch

Majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
Larry Flynt

That’s what this site wants for all Americans – the right to set up their own governments.  Some are content to blame the Republicans or Democrats.  We blame government and want a chance for a new start with a government based on an expanded list of human rights and small businesses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_re_us/us_native_hawaiians

HONOLULU – Their kingdom long ago overthrown, Native Hawaiians seeking redress  are closer than they’ve ever been to reclaiming a piece of Hawaii. Native Hawaiians are the last remaining indigenous group in the United States  that hasn’t been allowed to establish their own government, a right already  extended to Alaska Natives and 564 Native American tribes. With a final vote pending in the U.S. Senate and Hawaii-born President Barack  Obama on their side, the nation’s 400,000 Native Hawaiians could earn federal  recognition as soon as this month — and the land, money and power that comes  with it.

The measure passed the U.S. House last month. Many Native Hawaiians believe this process could help right the wrongs  perpetuated since their kingdom was overthrown in 1893. The also point to the  hundreds of thousands who died from diseases spread by foreign explorers before  the kingdom fell. Native Hawaiians never fully assimilated after the first Europeans arrived in  1778: They earn less money, live shorter lives, get sent to prison more often  and are more likely to end up homeless than other ethnicities, said Clyde Namuo,  CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the state-funded agency founded to  improve the conditions of Native Hawaiians. ”It’s about correcting the injustice,” Namuo said. “When you look very closely  at the numbers — prison, health, wealth, education — we are not at the level  that our colonizers are at.” However, just what Native Hawaiians would receive if the federal recognition  measure passes Congress is uncertain.

 The bill sets up negotiations between a  new Native Hawaiian government, the state of Hawaii and the federal government,  but it doesn’t specify what resources Native Hawaiians would receive. Namuo said he hopes the lives of Native Hawaiians would be improved if they had  more control of their own destiny. A disproportionate share of Native Hawaiians find themselves homeless, huddled  beneath plastic tarps in beach camps or living in shelters. Native Hawaiians  make up 28 percent of the state’s homeless who received outreach services, while  accounting for about 20 percent of the population, according to last year’s  report by the University of Hawaii Center on the Family.

Congratulations to the Hawaiians!

Question: Wasn’t Amanda’s blood comingled in the basin with the victim’s blood?

No, Meredith’s blood was only comingled with Amanda’s DNA (her hair, skin cells, etc), not her blood. Since Amanda lived there, this is totally irrelevant pseudo evidence. The DNA evidence and fingerprints actually prove that Amanda is innocent. Yes, her DNA should be found everywhere. However, Meredith’s room was free of any of Amanda’s fingerprints and DNA. (1/4) Rudy Guede’s fingerprints and DNA were everywhere in the victim’s room, on her clothes, in the crapper, and by some reports, semen in the victim.  There are also his bare footed footprints in the bathroom. (1/4)

The cell phones and computers show NO communication between Guede and Amanda or Sollecito. (1/2) Amanda’s testimony also proved she was innocent. In 50 plus hours of interrogation under extreme duress, she only said that if she had to imagine being there, she would have imagined a scream. (1/4) Maybe something was lost in translation.

 No witness or cellmate, or boyfriend implicated her in the crime and she’s been in prison for two years. Don’t you think her cell is bugged?. They probably enjoy watching her.  (1/4)

The cartwheels, the confusion about who killed her roommate, the kissing and face book don’t prove anything at all. Perhaps there is even a slight indication she is naïve/innocent. There are spoken indications that she is innocent based on the fact she said some of the things I said when I once had hugely trumped charges made against myself. (1/2)

 I put some odds in my the previous paragraph. I’m not implying they are evidence.  I just want to make a point that the probability of her guilt could be calculated statistically.  One would need statistics that showed how frequently the situations I’ve indicated correlated to a confident guilty verdict. If you multiply each event together to get a probability it is 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/2 * 1/4 * 1/2 = 1/256.  In other words, there is statistically only a 1/256 chance that Amanda is guilty.  The numbers are only examples.  To calculate a real probability mathematicians, forensic scientists, and lawyers have to work together to create accurate probabilities.  My guess: Amanda has only a 1/256 chance of statistically being guilty.

 The number is meaningless; the method is not. Go MIT!!! Ya up to the challenge?

Some of the data came from FriendsofAmanda.com.  Some came from 48 hours and some came from the seven hour presentation on CNN the night of the verdict.  The data may not be totally accurate.  The method of making a statistical guilt/innocent calculation is what I am proposing and trying to sell (for the sake of a more utopian justice system).   Please leave comments below.  I will make the necessary corrections to make accurate.

GIA, Italy — The parents of American student Amanda Knox are being investigated for alleged defamation for saying Italian police abused their daughter before arresting her in the 2007 slaying of her British roommate.

Curt Knox told AP Television News on Saturday that he and his ex-wife, Edda Mellas, received notice of the investigation Friday as they arrived in Italy for the final week of hearings in their daughter’s case.

He said he found the timing odd, given that a verdict in the case is expected at the end of the week.

Italian news agency ANSA said Knox’s parents were being investigated for alleged defamation stemming from an interview they gave Britain’s Sunday Times in June 2008 in which the father alleged police had physically and verbally abused his daughter during questioning before she was arrested.

Police have denied harming Knox.

The Italian government seems to think it is OK to them to all gang up and libel one American, but get outraged at any attempt at defense! Italian cases are tried in the media, but it apparently it is supposed to be a one way flow from government. Does Italy have freedom of speech?

Italy won’t allow Amanda to be tried over here because Americans have the death penalty. Then they show us a far worse judicial system. Talk about being hypocritical!

Amanda Knox was Italy’s “Woman of the Year”

http://www.seattlecrimeblog.com/tags/amanda_knox/
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … =rss-world
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/
http://www.newser.com/tag/16781/1/amanda-knox.html

This one is prejudiced against Amanda:
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj … t_last_ch/

Amanda and Dog

4.)  Are the Utopian States capitalistic?

I would hope that they are partly capitalistic.

The Utopian States should endeavor to keep businesses small and owned entirely by the workers.  Small companies should be family sized with less than twenty employees.  Products produced by large monopolistic external corporations should be taxed with a sales tax proportional to their size.

There is no stock market {hopefully} in any of the Utopian states as the workers fully own their own company.  Small companies can link up in one building to assemble products of magnitude – like a plane.  An aircraft manufacturing company, for example, may be comprised of 1000 smaller companies.  Each of these small companies owns their own tools and floor space.

The effort is to return to the size of businesses America had during the 1800’s.  During this golden age people loved their businesses and independence.  The small business owners were the most respected people in America (History of Small Businesses in America).

5.) Do the Utopian States have Goodie Goodie people and people that go nuts and commit mass murder?

The Utopian States {hopefully} has a plan in place where everybody has their suspicions investigated.  Of course the people that want someone else investigated will also be investigated.  It is only fair.  Facts would be recorded in a data base.  If enough people record their suspicions about a person, that person would undergo a major investigation and hopefully receive the help he needs.

On the other hand, if a person reports others friviously, the investigation whould show that this person’s reports don’t merit serious future consideration.

Some people will want you to explain everything back to the level of quarks. If you try to make your explanation too basic, you run into theory.

For example, it’s a fact that the sky is blue. However, some people might see pink when they look at the sky. Society educates these people to interprete pink as blue, so to them pink is blue! This is good, it is a necessary calibration.

If people can accept the principle that anything the color of the sky and the ocean is blue, then there are no disputes. People need to understand their guiding principles.

In electronics, it’s called calibration. In shooting, it’s called “Kentucky windage”.

Some opinions, conclusions, or judgments aren’t simple flip desires or whims, but the result of education and prior study. Someone that’s made a study of something may give a better answer in 1 second than another can give in a year.

It’s study. It’s education.

Nevertheless, the educated person should be able to trace his opinion back through principles to fact. The more sophisticated the opinion, the longer the explanation. Sometimes, things aren’t worth explaining. If we have to teach a novice how a computer works in order to teach keyboarding, it isn’t worth it.

In other words, people have to learn guiding principles. People can’t be given a complete grade, high school, and college education in order to communicate understanding for each idea that you are trying to communicate.

Some people want you to give them a complete education just to “win” your argument.

If somebody wants to learn “keyboarding” he must accept the computer as a black box and start his education from the keyboard –

One can have a set of principles that make him a MUCH better judge of character, etc.

Some people can tell when another is lying by noticing small details.

Chess – knowledge of details. Math – knowledge of rules and methods.

The value judgments of some are a LOT better than the value judgments of others.

For example, chess masters base their opinions on hundreds of little principles learned from past experience. A chess master has estimates, extrapolations, principles and formula. He will beat 50 players simultaneously if they have mere “value judgments” with no tested principles to back them up.

Some of the things a chess master uses to estimate a position seem pretty minute, but he can squeeze a win out of them. A lot of times a win relies on the correct “opposition” – who moves first. A chess master can calculate opposition twenty moves in the future. A “zugzwang” will win too. That is the knowledge of how to waste a move.

A novice would realize a master’s judgment was more than the “value judgments” of others even if his reasons for winning seemed negligible. Chess is a game in which your ideas can be quickly tested. A masterly chess g .

99% of all Americans could be given a mate in two and lose to a better player.

If you told them they had had a winning position they would say something like: “This is a free country, you can say what you want” or “That is your value judgment”.

Once you showed them the mate in two, they would at first be in denial. Then they would call you an Ahole.

My point: The majority are ignorant, arrogant, and verbally hostile.

No, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.

My real point: Most people will not make the effort to understand something before giving an opinion.

This blog had 3500 hits and page Views Wednesday – mostly from North America. Last Tuesday there were 400 hits and page views mostly from central Europe centering on Germany but also from Japan, Australia, UK, Egypt, Iran, India, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, France, Vietnam, and the rest of the world.