Category Archives: Utopian

Top Category

Massachusetts is a One Party System

Massachusetts Republicans in office (From Wikipedia)

Membersof Congress

  • None

U.S. Senate

  • None (after Elizabeth Warren is sworn in)

Statewide offices

  • None

Four points define a volume, three points define a plane, two points define a line, one point defines only a point.

A true democracy, a democracy with volume, needs 4 political parties each supported with over 20% of the voters.  Massachusetts is run by only one political party.  Massachusetts, as a one party state, has no more of a democracy then those dictatorships where everybody votes only for the dictator or his party.

Even if Massachusetts had two viable political parties, they would still need two more to break the fallacy of too few choices.  Massachusetts needs four viable political parties, not two and certainly not one.  Having a two party system is not really a solution, Massachusetts and America needs four viable political parties – each supported with at least 20% of the population – to be a real democracy.  We are back to the days when we were represented by the English, when we said we had taxation without representation.

Our one party system, for example, has brought us a flat line tax where the billionaires pay a smaller percentage than the workers (who have to pay sales taxes).   The workers in Massachusetts need most of their income for necessities, property taxes and sales taxes.  The small percentage left over after the necessities is consumed by the flat tax.  Meanwhile the billionaires, with most of their money still left after spending for necessities, pay at the same rate.

The democratic party in  Massachusetts seems to represent the billionaires.  Republicans aren’t needed.  Is a one party system a democracy?

Lizzy Warren took an ax and gave Scott Brown 40 whacks.  I don’t like either party which is why I would prefer a four party system or a lottocracy.   Heck, put the class presidents of all the universities in a lottary and select our representatives from them.  The results would have to be better than what we have.

 

Proposed Federal Government (Not Utopia, but a step in that direction)

The house of representatives in Washington DC should be split into three houses. One house would represent the top 25%, the second house would represent the middle 50% and third house would represent the bottom 25% (in terms of income). All the houses would be required to approve any legislation.

The goals:

The top 25% of the wealthy should be responsible for paying down the 16 trillion dollar debt in ten years with an income tax.  As their net worth is 40 trillion, this should be a relatively small task.  The justification is that since the opulent have 85% of the wealth, they should also own 85% of the debt.

The middle 50 percent should only pay social security taxes plus a ten percent sales tax.    The top 25% and bottom 25% also pay these taxes, but the middle income would with their normal spending habits, pay the majority of these taxes.  The middle 50% should have no income taxes.

The bottom 25% pay little in the way of taxes, but should be required to live within a budgeted 7% of the national income, redistributed to them.

The ten percent sales tax should pay for the military, government and poor.  Once the wealthy have paid off the national debt in ten years, their income taxes would contribute to payment of these expenses.

No, this budget wouldn’t balance for ten years, as there isn’t sufficient revenue as long as the income taxes of the wealthy are used to pay down the national debt.  I assume that government being what they are, would have to borrow.

 

Musings About the Presidential Candidates and Their Parties

Obama has experience. Romney wants to be president because he wants to right the wrongs and give small business a chance to compete and hire people. Trouble is, both the Republican and Democratic parties are sick and stupid.

However, Mitt worked with the Democrats in Massachusetts.  I think he would suck up to the Democrats in Washington and lead the Republicans because they always follow.

The nation has worsened under both the Republicans and Democrats. Bush was good for Texas. Perhaps Mitt will be good for Massachusetts. Personally, I don’t care who is elected.   Furthermore, my vote won’t matter as Massachusetts will vote for Obama.  I want to vote against Warren.

 I don’t want $6 dollar a gallon gas and heating oil. That would blow all my plans and send me back to work. When I was young they talked about how bad central planning was in Russia. I think that no planning or stupid planning is worse. The Democratic plan of lowering unemployment by making jobs that are paid for by government is a flop. Goodbye America.

Both the economy and the environment have to be considered. Our elected stooges need the epiphany that they are far too ignorant to continue governing as they have in the last decade. As a nation, we have to have goals and budgets. The top 20 percent (those with family net worth’s over 1.2 million) can’t continue to have 48 trillion dollars as long as the USA is 16 trillion in debt. Furthermore, we can’t keep sending poor people to nursing homes that cost $300,000 per year. We’ve got to have budgets, priorities, and plans. Stamp out government ignorance!

No candidate has yet said what I want to hear let alone given sufficient assurances that his plan will be implemented. It’s a case of insufficient proof and promises versus insufficient proof and promises.

I expect my social security payments. I paid about half my earnings to local, state and federal government. I expected competence in the way they spent it. Even if I let bygones be bygones and forget their past transgressions, I still don’t expect to be made even partially responsible for their 16 trillion dollar debt.

This society has been designed so that dependence is necessary. I mean nobody can go out and shoot a buffalo to feed his family for the next week. Few have farms. Consequently we need jobs and government has been busy little beavers in diminishing jobs. Any type of dependence, whether by government created jobs, is going to increase government debt. There are only two solutions: 1) Make fair trade and obliterate free trade controlled by Dictators in China. 2) Take our surplus people to death camps like Hitler did.

I think plutocracy or czarism better define the upper crust in America.  The Democrats (Obama and Elizabeth Warren) are Lawyers from Harvard. The Republicans Protect the wealth of the rich like giant two headed dogs. This election is one of the aristocrats versus the plutocrats.   The Democratic Aristocracy of Harvard associated Lawyers, exemplified by Kerry, Obama and Warren, has voted to make laws that fleece the poor via legal expenses, high medical costs, outsourcing, destruction of the unions, and imports. They’ve also voted to drive up the debt which will be paid for by the middle class but benefits the opulent. Both parties pretend to help the lower 80%, but we keep getting worse off. The aristocracy and the plutocracy both represent the same people.

 I think a two party system demonstrates the fallacy of too few choices. Certainly a choice between an aristocracy and a plutocracy isn’t sufficient. Furthermore, I don’t believe that those with no money should dictate how the money should be spent (i.e. “Let’s vote that the rich give all their money to us” is not right)

 I would rather the house was split into three houses. One house would represent the top 25%, the second house would represent the middle 50% and third house would represent the bottom 25% (in terms of income). All the houses would be required to approve any legislation.

What is Utopia?

We believe that Utopia is a place where a person a person can live as if there was no government and were no criminals.  Utopia would be a place where entrepreneurs could make a living without having to struggle against monopolies and giant slave hiring companies whether domestic or foreign.  Utopia would have quite a few millionaires, but few would flaunt their wealth or suggest that they are better because of their wealth.

Utopia would be a place where athletes that are not quite major league caliber could flourish. Utopia would be a place where actors, actresses, singers, musicians and artists that are good but not the best or not well known could flourish, be admired, be respected and make an adequate living.

Utopia is a place where all law can be described by a 200 page book. Utopia is a place where the law is about what’s fair and not about the legalization of deceptive practices. Utopia is a place where the law is about restitution and minimal prophylaxis and not about making mountains out of molehills, or the extortion of large large legal fees by the threat of huge prison sentences for fake ‘crimes’ that do no harm. Utopia is not a place where evidence is falsified or fabricated.

Utopia is a place where the school systems nurture the mutual respect and admiration of each other more than a feeling that others are merely competition. Utopia is a place where knowledge is secondary to the feelings of others. Utopia is a place where, during their public schooling, all continue until they have a 100% grasp of the materials, where progress of the better students is not held back, where the capable students can continue their education, and where time is not a factor in what to study or when.

Utopia is a place where large companies are cartels of smaller companies. Utopia is a place where government is a cartel of smaller companies. Utopia is a place where many can become millionaires but none can make a billion. We believe Utopia would have no billionaires and no wealth redistribution.  Utopia would have few that are dependent on welfare or government subsidies.

Utopia is a place of no income taxes. The government exists on relatively small sales taxes. The government is tiny and doesn’t need taxes for welfare, armies, large law enforcement or large bureaucracies.

Utopia would be a place where billionaires would be happy living without their wealth – they could invest their wealth in dystopia.

If you wish to contibute to this Utopia effort, then please contact us via the contact form accessed under the picture of the serene road.

 

Twenty Five Dead from Terrorist Responses to Bigoted Film

KABUL (Reuters) – Afghan militants claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a suicide bomb attack on a minivan carrying foreign workers that killed 12 people saying it was retaliation for a film mocking the Prophet Mohammad.

A short film made with private funds in the United States and posted on the Internet has ignited days of demonstrations in the Arab world, Africa, Asia and in some Western countries.

In a torrent of violence blamed on the film last week, the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack in Benghazi and U.S. and other foreign embassies were stormed in cities in Asia, Africa and the Middle East by furious Muslims. At least nine other people were killed.

What we have is a clash over two rights: the right to free speech and the right to freedom of religion. Which right should prevail? Should government clamp down on bigoted films?  Or perhaps government should educate their population to be more sensitive to the needs, rights and feelings of others.

This illustrates the reason why I have always maintained that the most important thing in any constitution is an full enumeration (listing) of all the rights of the  people.  Make a full enumeration of all rights and you will find that people also have the right NOT to listen to the free speech of another.  People have the right NOT to have their families listen to bigoted speech.

The court doesn’t have the right to punish people for a bigoted speech.  The court only has the right to protect the rights of people NOT to hear.  The court should have some means of making a ruling on what is bigoted.  If people then violate the finding of the court, they can be punished in some proportionate manner, like being made to pay for the court costs.

Government force should be reserved for only two things – a violation of a court order  or the causation of harm or injury.  Government force should be used judiciously and cautiously.

The harm and injury inflicted on others is the greater crime.  People will, after all, forget all speeches.  People will never forget the loss of life.

If someone is injured by bigoted speech, that should be actionable in a court of law.  People should have be given greater use of the courts.  On the other hand, the courts don’t need to always order punishments.  The courts need sometimes to just find that something is wrong and ask that it not be repeated (probation).  The courts need to be free and swift at times and not aggravate emotional wounds.  The sword of justice needs to be a little dull as to not rush to judgment when the evidence is not conclusive.

Government should educate their population to be more sensitive to the needs, rights and feelings of others.  People should learn to respect the natural rights of other whether enumerated or not.  People have the right to not be harassed by bigots for their religious beliefs.  But most of all, people have the right to live their lives.

The Natural Right to Have Sex (or not)

Hugh Hefner is ready for war—not against his former wives or girlfriends, but against conservative politicians who he says are thrusting their viewpoints into other people’s bedrooms.

In a rare move, the founder of Playboy magazine picks up his pen and writes an editorial in the May issue of the men’s magazine. The politics website Politico.com notes that Hefner, in his editorial headlined “The War Against Sex,” blasts “repressed conservatives … [for] pounding on America’s bedroom door.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/hefner-declares-war-bedroom-politics-124403766.html

The right to consensual sex, sex without force, is a natural right that supercedes government itself. The right to have or not have sex is as basic as the right to eat and breath. It is one of those basic rights that cannot be prohibited by any constitution or law unless a revolution is desired. Amendment X of the constitution guarantees natural rights.

Amendment X: 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.

Hugh Hefner is correct. Washington DC is, as usual, wrong.

The fable of Santa Clause

The fable of Santa Clause is an important allegory. Santa Claus is well liked.  He is a large, popular philanthropist.  His elves/ workers are little, unimportant, and uninteresting.  The recipients of Santa’s gifts are wonderfully normal children.  The illusion maintained by this society is that the top one percent (the billionaires, stars and politicians) are like Santa and the workers are elves. 

In actuality, the difference between the top one percent and that person that earns a salary of 1/1000 th the top is one idea/ten pounds/two inches or another tiny advantage.  We are not living in a world of giants and Lilliputians.  We are living in a world where the slave/workers have been taught to believe that there are giants.

The first step to utopia is to realize that the giants among us are mere mortals but that there are some pretty strong mortals among us.  Most of them are unrecognized.  There is no reason to give families wealth that will last lifetimes because none of them merits being a Czar or royal family.

Down with royalty!  Up with the competent people among us.  Give credit to the good among us.  Learn to recognize the competent.  Stop worshiping the wealthy!

Elves of the world, revolt! Start by not worshiping the illusory pinnacle of the world.  Follow instead the strong leaders among you.  Follow he/she who most strongly represents your beliefs – your real beliefs.

America’s Class Structure

America’s class structure:

Aristocrats:  These elite people constitute 1% of the population of America, yet have 30% of the wealth.  They are worth about 18 trillion dollars or an average of 26 million per family (assuming that the wife and husband have equal wealth and that there are 2.3 dependents/family).

Upper Class:  These wealthy people (not including the Aristocrats) are the next wealthiest 20%.  These 60 million people have 50% of the wealth or about 30 trillion dollars.  They have an average wealth of 2.15 million per family.

Working Class:  This group works for a living.  They consist of 50% of the American population.  They have an aggregate wealth of 12 trillion dollars.  Most of this wealth is in their homes.  The average wealth per family is about $344,000 dollars for a family of 4.3 people.

Poor.  This group of people comprise of about 30% of the American population.  They have an average wealth of 5000 per person.

The working class is under attack.  There homes are in danger of going under water (worth less than the mortgage).  Their jobs are being outsourced or lost to imports from countries that don’t have to abide by the rules, laws and policy of the American government. Their products are being copied and plagiarized by countries that do not comply with copyrights and trademarks.  The working class is being increasingly harassed by the police and exploited by lawyers.  They are being thrust into competition with the slave labor of other countries that keep the currency pegged to the dollar in order to defeat capitalism and exploit those that trade freely.   Big corporations throughout the world make it impossible for the small businessman to have his own company.  The working class has once again been enslaved or, perhaps, has always been enslaved by the aristocrats and “upper crust”.

The poor are being prevented from moving up to the working class by the same forces that are suppressing the working class.  The middle class and the poor are the market for the goods and products of the aristocrats and ‘upper crust’, so they better take heed…

Almost forgot the prison class that aren’t really alive in that they aren’t even allowed to control their own bodies.  They can even be forced to lift their genitals so that the guards can see if they have hidden anything.  There are 2 million in this group of government controlled human bodies.  Indeed, this proves the insanity of the aristocracy and ‘upper crust’ as this treatment could never be considered ‘justice’ by any but the very insane/mad.  Justice is restitution and minimal prophylaxis for the causation of loss.  Justice is not long, long periods of incarcertion enforced by people with big egos and small brains.

 

Ode to 2011

This is a very good poetic summary of 2011.  It’s well worth listening to and watching.

Ode to 2011

Household names this year were forced to exit center stage. All across North Africa, revolution was the rage.

Mubarak fell in Egypt. Gadhafi bit the dust. Who will be the new leaders, are they people we can trust?

The island of Japan was dealt a devastating blow. An earthquake hit, it measured an astounding 9.0.

Bin Laden was found in Pakistan…

from Rochester.YNN

Next US Presidential Election: The Fallacy of too few choices.

With the next US presidential election looming in the fall, we should look to practical short term solutions rather than the long range utopian solutions.

Ever hear of the fallacy of too few choices?  This fallacy is also called the fallacy of the false dilemma?  It would be a fallacy of too few choices if one party gave the choice of having a huge military budget and the other party gave the choice of having a tiny military budget.  The given options are too few.  Most people would prefer options that allowed for a military budget that was slightly stronger or slightly less strong.

The fallacy of too few choices also applies to clustered choices or packaged choices.  Having to choose between the cluster of proposals preferred by the Democratic Party or the cluster of choices preferred by the Republican Party is a logical fallacy; it gives the voter too few options.  The real choices are infinite in any choice between packages with several options.

I will not give the long range utopian solution for this problem in this post.  I will, however, suggest the shorter range solution is that the USA should have more viable political parties.

That solution creates an enigma.  How does the government create more viable political parties?  Ultimately the solution will require changes to the voting laws.

A short term solution to the problem of having more political parties would be instantaneous and not too painful.  The solution would neither be a complete solution or a final solution.  A solution that could put the USA on the path to having more political parties and thus more choices would be to require that each candidate belong to two different political parties.  A candidate would have to belong to a major party and a minor party.  A Republican or Democratic candidate might belong also to the Tea Party or the Libertarian party, for example.  Two totally independent parties would support each candidate.

Once there are four or more political parties sharing the political responsibilities in Washington, further changes could be made.  This solution would be an interim solution and should be automatically retired after a short trial – perhaps five years.