Category Archives: Utopian

Top Category

Boston Marathon bombings

I woke up crying twice last night over the death of the older Tsarnaev (a Boston Marathon bomber).  I remember his bullet riddled body (I’m entirely against assault weapons),  his three year old daughter, his wife and family here and in Russia/Chechnya.  The ‘face of evil’ that Kerry spoke of, once the smoke has cleared, is government.  Our own government, laws and discrimination (by giving super-rights to some, we discriminate and enable bigotry against others (perhaps the Tsarnaev brothers were discriminated against in the form of granting super-rights to others?)

I consider the Tsarnaev brothers to be the latest victims of government enabled bigotry.  I also don’t like inflammatory speech that brands them as ‘the face of evil’.  I also don’t like speeches that appeal to the pride, sympathy and emotion (like Obama’s recent remarks in Boston).

I don’t like government that listens like a brick.  (where is the government database of complaints, suggestions, and letters?)

Massachusetts has a ‘Murder Hot Line’ to see that any accused of murder get a lawyer appointed before they are interrogated.   Massachusetts also has no death penalty.  I hope Massachusetts law is respected and that torture and death penalties aren’t evoked in this case.

A potential solution is to let people form their own government elsewhere – as long as they vow to make it the job of their new government to protect the natural rights of the people.  Let them rent land from a government in lieu of taxes and for a nominal rent.  Since the average American generates a deficit, renting land for nothing would be a plus for the United States of America.  I think dissatisfaction arises when a government tries to force their morality (or lack of morality) on everybody.   The people that object strenuously to this solution should be shot (just kidding).  The Jewish people got their own state.  The American Indian got their own reservations.  This solution works.  This solution at least works better than war and shooting people.

Further Reading: The New Republic

I’m no expert on Chechnya, so please add a comment if my comments seem non
sequitur.  I love humanity and meant no disrespect or callousness towards any of those suffering loss or injury.  I empathize with all.  The discussion of peaceful government reform is my only objective.

Let the peaceful people secede

Joe Biden said:

“Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebody’s hands [who] doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it,” the outspoken vice president, a shotgun owner himself, replied. “It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.”

Hasn’t anybody ever heard of the Hatfields and the McCoys? Has nobody studied the history of Sicily or the Wild West?

Isn’t it a bit paranoid to have guns to protect yourself against intruders? I thought you were supposed to be sane to have a gun!

Get a big dog and an alarm system if you’re worried about intruders. Move to a nice suburban town.

I have a friend that owns a half dozen single shot guns. He’s in the woods surrounded by bears, wild boars, ten foot water moccasins, coyotes and other dangerous wild life. I would own a few weapons in that situation too.

I, however, don’t like the idea of being potential target practice for children and crazy people with assault weapons.  Nor do I wish to shoot anyone.  I really want to disconnect from a gun crazy society.  Let the peaceful people secede.  Let the peaceful people form their own little communities.

Save humanity one little community at a time

From Obama’s speech:

“The most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still,” he said. “Just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall.”

Of course we aren’t all equal. In fact this is an insult. This statement implies that in spite of all our skills, education, knowledge, and training, we are equal to everybody else. We are equal to everybody except those given wealth or position. We are the equals of everybody but the wealthiest 5%, the judges, the politicians, and the stars. Ability has nothing to do with the equation. All are equal to all.

It’s the way government puts us down and controls us. You see, only the hierarchy is important. People don’t value knowledge. People go to schools and universities not to learn but to ascend the hierarchy. But the blatant disregard for ability, skill, knowledge and talent is defeating genetics and competition in defining the future human. We are all being domesticated by the hierarchy and the kings, queens, princes, princesses, dukes and others of the false hierarchy shall continue to rule over us.

Disconnect from governments and form little groups. Endeavor to make them Utopian. That is the only way to save humanity. Save humanity one little community at a time. Leave this one size fits all world.

Obama Speech Shows Dystopian Elements

An excerpt from Obama’s speech follows:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s inaugural address on Monday marked the first time a president used the occasion to praise progress on gay rights, an indication of shifting public attitudes on the issue.

In the speech marking the start of his second term, Obama placed the struggle for gay rights squarely in the pantheon of two other defining civil rights movements in American history: those for blacks and women.

The most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still,” he said. “Just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall.”

Have you ever heard of middleclass rights? Probably not. They are described by the tenth amendment:

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.

Blacks, gays and women have those same unlisted, un-enumerated rights. If a president thinks that any special group has any special rights, he is not presidential material. Certainly our rights should be enumerated by amendment 10. We have the right to life, to breath, to drink, to have consensual sex, to eat, to speak and to not hear speakers.

If the 5% of the people that are gay had their rights violated by anybody, it was by the tax laws that didn’t give them the right to certain deductions. Government was the bigot. Of course the tax laws shouldn’t even include income taxes on the middle class. The entire middle class has their rights continuously violated by taxes. The entire middle class is and always has been raped and plundered by government.

That other Obama statement: “The most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal” is obviously incorrect and always has been considered incorrect. The truth is that government should give us equal rights and protect our rights equally. It was important that Obama say this. That he didn’t, doesn’t say much about the man.

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.