Racist, Unethical, and Wasteful Hiring Practices

Finding employment is difficult. Even if you haven't had to worry about employment for many years, consider those who do and also yourself in the possible/unforeseen future. I especially hate facing the dreaded racial and gender questions. (Ironically, these days, I answer them just to fuel their racist/sexist agendas.) Since when should race or sex matter in the hiring decision? For even in the effort to police employers (in futility), racist/sexist questions themselves advance both racism and sexism. Furthermore, I ask you, How many times do you have to go to a store or website and fill out the same information over and over and over again with slight deviations? How many times are you asked if you are white or male, or whatever? How many times are you grilled about your previous salary, your previous employment applications, your previous high school attendance, and many other personal questions? And where is your government to protect your privacy, your rights, and your time?

It is the responsibility of your government to set-up and maintain the infrastructure for quick and easy job matching across the country, while protecting your rights at the same time. This responsibility falls under its responsibilities to protect our liberties, our pursuit of happiness, our general welfare, and finally just to protect our economy and our way of life.

In the first place, government must outline the information which is legal for a corporation to solicit during the job application process, including any process which results in the payment of goods, services, or money to an individual as a contractor or employee. The solicitation or collection of information about race or gender should not be allowed by the corporation, but may be collected and tracked only by the government anonymously. Other personal information protected by the government should also include previous salary, salary requirements, credit reports, job search details, personal relationships, personal views and philosophies, to name a few. Drastically shortening the list and more completely protecting the privacy of the people, employers should be limited to acquiring or maintaining only the following kinds of information: 1) Name, Phone numbers, Email, Website, 2) Skills/Experience and strengths, Certifications and degrees, 3) Dates and evidences of skills, experiences, certifications, and degrees, and 4) Limitations of physical work and conditions. No person may be forced to provide or maintain any of this information on themselves or others, but the information provided must be affirmed by oath for its truth.

Secondly, government must enable the efficient collection, maintenance, and distribution of employment information while prosecuting the collection, maintenance, or distribution of other information through any channels. The people must be able to enter their information and update it 24/7 by website, email, or mail submission with reasonably short update times. All information submitted must be protected against theft or destruction. Information must be captured frequently to avoid data loss. All hiring or contracting must be documented at this site for the public to see. All jobs from registered businesses must be posted there at least 1 hour before any hiring or contracting decision is made. This ensures that everyone is aware of job opportunities available and can watch hiring practices. All individuals must report directly to the government all jobs or contracts accepted. All individuals must authorize the collection of race and gender for government reporting to the public. Companies with highly discriminatory hiring stats would be publicly investigated. For the sake of image alone, companies would have an incredibly strong motivation not to look bad through unethical practices.

Lethal Handgun Concealed Carry with Peace, not Fear.

I wish to speak to you about the very serious subject of handgun ownership and carrying because so many people have expressed ideas on the subject which could unnecessarily lead to very serious consequences. My goal is to promote peace at all times, while continually preparing myself to effectively use lethal weapons, when necessary. Being feared is for bullies and criminals, while helping, comforting, and secure is for heroes.

I speak as a son of a military officer, a former soldier, a concealed carry license holder, and an avid reader of many security publications. My intention is to increase the security and safety of every person through proper education on the topic of lethal force which is typically grossly neglected and frequently discussed inappropriately. Please understand that I frequently reference Texas laws, and that you will simply needed to substitute the training for your state's concealed carry laws, as appropriate. The underlying concepts are universally: make people feel good to keep people rational and friendly, but be ready to answer force with force, and lethal force with lethal force, as necessary.

According to our second amendment, every citizen has the federal right to own a firearm; though most of the people I have ever known seem unprepared to safely exercise this right. The states, cities, and private sector are all free to regulate that right as they wish according to their respective jurisdictions. Ultimately, citizens themselves must understand the consequences of the decision to own or carry a firearm (or not). Those who advocate the 2nd, that all citizens should exercise this right, should keep in mind that most people lack the self-control to make rational choices with a firearm on their person. Conversely, the fear of guns ultimately leaves people unprepared and paralyzed in their moments of distress. For those who are unprepared to exercise the right to bear arms, I encourage you to prepare for the responsibility of handgun ownership as a long-term goal.

Additionally, I would like to cover "gun-free" zones. According to the law, unlicensed citizens may not park their vehicle in a school parking lot with a handgun or other firearm in it. Concealed handgun licensed owners may park, but may not carry on a school campus. Concealed carry is not authorized in churches or at sporting events or school events, where people tend to engage in heated and emotional topics and activities. I advocate a re-examination of our laws on these "gun-free" zones, because criminals and "crazies" do not respect these laws.

Put simply, any handgun is lethal and most handguns can easily kill on the first shot. Also, display of a handgun, and even talk about handguns (even in this blog) can cause a disturbance of the public peace, and anger people quickly. The gravity of those facts sets the tone for the responsibility of owning and carrying a firearm. The moment you touch a functional firearm, you accept the possibility that you may have to take a person's life, and if that happens, you must hope that you can sleep every night thereafter knowing that you did everything you could to minimize the risk to everyone, including the assailant. Until you understand the full value of human life and the weight of the power to end it, you should probably avoid owning and carrying a firearm. It is better to live at the mercy of other lethally violent people than take lives which could have been saved, so limit your self-defense to carrying mace or other non-lethal weapons.

There is only one valid place to aim and that is the center of the body (to hit the right target and no bystanders). There is no defense against shooting an innocent bystander so you cannot miss. Warning shots or merely "flashing" the weapon both draw attention to the fact that you are carrying and quickly reduce your odds of survival. They also rely on the use of fear to gain compliance, which breaks down when the bluff is called and no justification exists for using the firearm. Such behavior also creates public panic and increases the chances of police shooting you. When the handgun comes out, you must be able to communicate that you fear for your life or for another's life and the target must soon drop; fire until the threat disappears. Otherwise, you are needlessly escalating the situation and increasing the risk to everyone around. Contrary to popular opinion, the 9mm is as lethal as the .45 (esp. when using hollow point, given no armor), and both will "stop" a person just as quickly. Being much larger diameter and much less massive, the 9mm will not penetrate walls as easily as a .45 (or most others), esp. with the hollow point round, and may be considered safer for indoor defense.

Anyone who assumes control of a lethal weapon must be sure to have great self-control and calming power, regardless of the situation. You must be able to effectively de-escalate situations, so that even if a person is trying to get you furious, you are still calm, rational, and trying to calm them down too. The goal is to avoid conflicts which could quickly escalate to a life of regret for an avoidable loss. If you have to ever shoot someone (may you never need to), you must already be at peace and accept the fact that everyone will look at you very differently for having done so, no matter how justified you were and how well you worked to avoid having to take that crucial action. Consider your history to determine if you have the self-control, peace, and discipline to handle the responsibilities connected with a firearm: 1) Have I lost control of my anger or harmed another individual, even by accident? 2) Do I blame my anger on others or allow others to "make me angry?" 3) Do I live in paralyzing or excessive fear, depression, or anxiety? [clear, rational thought is essential during critical times of conflict], 4) Have I ever gained at someone else's expense? [It is NOT okay to hurt someone just to "get your way," or because "you are right."], 5) Can I effectively calm those who do have the issues mentioned above? The goal is to reduce the need to use a handgun as much as possible. Fortunately, my conflict resolution and de-escalation skills have avoided the need to use lethal force and left me with clear conscience that I am effectively increasing both public security and public peace, and hold no/little responsibility for conflicts.

Ironically, as tough as it is to prepare for carrying a firearm, the choice to NOT carry is even tougher. If you do not carry, you exist in a state where, at any time, an armed criminal may bring great suffering and death upon you and your loved ones. Can you live with yourself with peace of mind and conscience knowing that you chose to allow that great evil to happen? Even after securing peace with allowing evil upon yourself and loved ones, you must also find peace with the effects of that evil upon everyone else; the good left undone, and the sorrow for the losses. Case in point: The recent Arizona shootings may have easily been mitigated if people were concealed carry license holders and were armed. It would have only taken one armed CHL citizen in the area a couple of seconds to identify the shooter and stop the madness. Since every person in the area chose to NOT carry, they effectively also chose to allow all the suffering and death which we have today from that grievious tragedy: they are partly to blame (responsible) for not stopping the evil much sooner.

My experience is that most people have trouble accepting ownership and control of their own anger and fear, let alone the issues of others, and would not at all be at peace with allowing either their loved ones or themselves to be at the mercy of any lethally armed criminal. This leaves them in a limbo state where they cannot chose to either accept or forsake a firearm. My advice to the people who unprepared to carry a handgun is that they should not even own a firearm until they are prepared to use it responsibly. It probably goes without saying that most children are far too immature to carry and that most parents are unable to teach their children sufficient discipline and ethics to do so safely. They have a hard enough time following their teacher's directions, not cheating on tests, obeying their parents, and so forth. Criminals most certainly lack the patience and discipline to responsibly carry and are like children in many respects, selfishly hurting others for their own gain without a second thought about it.

The conditions for taking a life are serious and require the imminent, unavoidable threat to life. It goes without saying that we must do all in our power to prevent this threat from emerging by calming everyone down right NOW. I will emphasize that we need calming peace for EVERYONE beginning RIGHT NOW with all diligence for the rest of our days. But if a person displays a handgun, club, blade, incapacitating chemical, or fighting skills and physical strength sufficient to make you fear for your life or the lives of others, you should utilize a handgun against that person in self-defense, if there are no other effective options available. I advise you to consider non-lethal or even diplomatic means of removing the threat so long as it does not risk anyone's life while at the same time holding potential for being effective.

Though the law currently forbids handguns in most school, I believe that they should be allowed by the law for those who are above 21 years of age and holding a Concealed Handgun License (CHL); many students agree: http://www.concealedcampus.org/. Teachers or students who get frustrated, anxious, or depressed to debilitating levels should not exercise this right. Why should we disarm the good guys, when you can count on criminals and crazies carrying firearms, even on campus. Concealed carry counters the threat of one wacko committing a massacre. In sympathy of the teacher's stress levels, when teachers have to both teach and discipline, both their health and their rational powers quickly dissolve. This introduces the need to separate discipline from teaching, and I would also advocate separating grading from both as well because grades are a source of great stress for both students and teachers. Holding the teacher accountable for the grades of the students is like holding the President accountable for the state of the economy. Both have some influence, but the students, like the economy, are ultimately responsible for making their own decisions. In conclusion, I advise the stable individual to carry concealed with license in order to counter evil, while always looking for problems in order to diffuse them at their earliest stages so as to minimize conflict by engaging peacefully.

Accountability for teachers and students

We oftentimes say that we want good teachers and therefore want to hold them accountable for their "performance," while we neglect the student's responsibility in the learning process. A teach with poor discipline is called a bad teacher despite their knowledge and real teaching skills, while students with poor performance blame their teachers, instead of themselves and the behavior of their peers.

Really, a teacher's knowledge is the only thing that really matters in teaching a class and the only thing that can be objectively assessed. Teachers can be taught new teaching techniques, but discipline is an entirely different issue from teaching which should be farmed out to those qualified to discipline. The teacher who is not responsible for the student's grades is free to teach.

Classrooms need cameras in them where others can watch and quickly intervene from outside the classroom. Halls also need cameras for the same reason. By quickly glancing over the monitors, a principal can see the conduct of all and give direction immediately to restore the environment to learning as quickly as possible. Specific students can be watched throughout the day, and weapons or other illegal behavior can be spotted quickly. Messages can be sent to specific speakers to provide minimal disruption of the rest of the school.

Problem students can be easily identified and moved to classes with other problem students, where they are more effectively dealt with. Tests can be more easily and effectively monitored. Discipline can be handled by a more centralized and streamlined authority. Teachers can have a wireless transmitter or other signal that brings attention to the class for swift situational assessment and student discipline.

The evaluation of the teachers can be effectively accomplished with tests and observation of the classroom for professional behavior alone. Movement throughout the school can be managed and controlled by the monitors.

The Effect of Government

Without dispute, government must act to have any effect. Government must assess a tax in order to act, for she cannot finance her operations without money or resources; unless, in some way, she manages to motivate enough people to freely contribute both their time and resources.

When a tax is assessed, the economy is always hurt. The tax assessment hurts the individuals against whom it is levied, all those who do business with him, and those who do business with them, and so on. Tax increases weaken the economy. Increasing government actions translates to both a weaker economy and a more powerful government. A more powerful government is more easily inclined to increase her taxes on a weakened economy, being less able to resist tax increase initiatives.

An income tax decreases a person's desire to work by reducing the rewards for his labors. The results are higher unemployment, and fewer people accepting jobs with increased responsibilities. This leaves much less capital available for spending, and thus weakens the economy.

A sales tax decreases a person's desire to spend. Less spending weakens the economy, but the result here differs from the first case in that people have higher wage jobs and more money saved for difficult times. The wages for increased responsibility are not diminished and therefore people are more likely to rise to their full potential, producing their finest work at their best wages. Unemployment is much lower because people are more inclined to work when the wages are undiminished by taxation. People will tend to save more because the penalty for purchasing goods is higher. During difficult times, people continue working through them because their savings carry them through it. Therefore depressions are much lighter and shorter with sales tax versus the income tax. Taxation still weakens the economy by slowing the business side, but the working part of the economy continues with as efficiently as possible given the economic state.

The decision of whether government should do something rests with the consideration of the cost on the individuals taxed. Reversing the popular quote, "No representation without taxation," because those who are taxed understand best the cost on themselves and on those with whom they do business. All must be taxed equally for all to be represented equally, and that taxation must be applied as a sales tax for the motivation to work to remain strong and keep everyone producing their best for the economy and receiving the best wages for their work.

Public schools need freedom and games

The public schools are very different than community colleges and universities for one principle reason: they hold education as a right. You might think that every child has a right to education, but from this point it is easy to choose either compulsory, boring education, or free, fun, enlightening education. I agree that it is a good thing to ensure that every child have the opportunity to receive all of the education that they are capable and interest in claiming.

The problem is that the philosophy of education as a right (while seeming benign and a "no brainer" on the surface) is usually interpreted in a very foolish way. You see, education as a right implies compulsory learning. Plato reinforces that compulsory education takes no hold upon the mind in his famous quotes:

"The most effective kind of education is that a child should play amongst lovely things."
"Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind."

To make matters worse, compulsory learning typically implies "cookie cutter" instruction, which is to say that all students will be presented with the same instruction and tests. Some teachers try to enrich their instruction with a variety of instructional styles for a shotgun effect. The problem there is that usually only one pellet of the correct learning style hits the target, if the child's style is similar to the ones chosen, and the wasted pellets represent wasted time and effort on the part of both the student and the instructor. The difference is that free education allows the child to freely claim his education without unneeded stress and through his own way, while compulsory education forces every child to receive the education in the same way or ways. Examination of public education clearly reveals that the public schools routinely force both students and teachers to embrace compulsory education. The connection of the problems commonly seen with students and teachers in the classroom with compulsory education inspires us to explore alternate approaches and condemns the compulsory education approach. Making students and teachers engage in coerced learning violates so many ethical and natural principles that it comes as a relief to back up and see the problems which follow directly from them.

For the pessimists who say that no student will learn given the freedom not to learn, I make 3 counters: 1) Learning is by nature fun and free unless the instructor kills either the fun or the freedom, 2) The learning environment remains compulsory, and 3) The natural mind is easily excited by its primary interests and all topics which unlock those interests.

Learning is naturally fun. Most games exist for teaching students skills needed to do various tasks and jobs. Rodeos demonstrate proficiency with the cowboy profession. Americas Army is a video game developed by the US Army as a tool for developing interests and skills required by the US Army professions, while war games develop the soldier's proficiency in fighting war. The game of "House" naturally develops an interest and ability in managing a house. The spelling bee is a game used to develop the skill of spelling, of course. Other games are designed to develop specific muscles or skills used in other activities or for other purposes. But how many of those games remain fun after compulsion enters the equation? Interest and compulsion are antagonists.

Some students are lazy, even when learning is made fun through games, and avoid the fun because of an established bad habit of avoiding anything requiring work in favor of their own meaningless games. Because of these students, the learning environment is compulsory, which only means that the must remain in a study hall type environment until their work receives a SATISFACTORY grade. Contrasting the boredom of a study hall with the fun of the games offered, the students will likely choose the games. Participation in the games requires of course that they follow the rules or else return to the "study hall" to be mentored by teachers without games.

So I ask, how much of our public education is games? Furthermore, how much of it is compulsory?

While those questions speak clear volumes, I will slam the dagger home into public education. How free is a child to enter the classroom or a teacher to accept or deny the student in our public education system? While dozens of questions and justifications may race to your mind at those questions, I ask you to suspend them and ask yourself how much better education might be if the student chose to enter the classroom knowing that the teacher was free to accept or reject him or her, and knowing that he or she could leave at any time? The logistics of discipline and responsibility for minors follows as a separate, unrelated, and easily addressable issue, so just consider the previous questions without the baggage of wondering about the consequences of "unacceptable" decisions, which is the root of all compulsion and the enemy of all liberty and enlightenment/learning.

You may have begun to make connections with post-secondary education because college is much more similar to this approach and enjoys much more effective education; though the damage done by this point is already extensive and almost irreparable.

What of the games, though? That sounds interesting, right? Why don't they happen? The primary reason is that the system doesn't like games because they remove the professional atmosphere and threaten a disciplinary system which is already heavily taxed with continual compulsion. If that weren't enough, the system taxes the teachers with the job of discipline and compulsion, leaving little time or energy available for the intense creativity required for both devising games and executing them. Finally, policy makers simply don't know how to evaluate the effectiveness of games either for learning or for testing.

I leave you with eight points which open the door to a whole new educational world of possibilities: 1) Teachers need to be free to work together to make games and to practice them, 2) Teachers need to be free from discipline, 3) Students need to receive complete responsibility for their learning which includes choosing their teacher and deciding to go to class, 4) Student testing must be done by a tester, not by a teacher, 5) Discipline must be monitored and enforced by an administrator without question for a teacher's or tester's acceptance of the student, 6) Teacher evaluation is only done by their students' scores, 7) Students must be in study hall run by administrators when not in class, and 8) Administrators track their students at all times.

The State of the nation and her constitution

Guys, no one is ignoring the constitution or ignorant of it. People are simply finding the loopholes around it so that they can do what they want. A poorly written document has many loopholes, and the constitution is no exception. And no, loopholes are not a sign of wickedness in people set to undermine the constitution, but instead are a sign of a constitution unprepared to meet the needs of a very modern nation or the level of morality required to maintain the fine balance in: the market, freedom/security, and diplomacy. But government is more balanced than in earlier times, as great issues are worked out through bloody conflicts like the Civil War, Kent State, and 9/11.

Yes, it is possible to design a constitution to perfection, immune from loopholes and in tune with the needs and morality of all future generations. In all humility :), I am probably the only one who can do it. I see the problems in the system and I know how to politically catalyze the good of the people as the free market mechanisms do economically to produce the mighty American economy; which even in the height of our current depression holds tremendous influence in the world economy. My constitution re-engineering project has already begun, but it is far from complete, though the foundation and framework are in place already. Interestingly, many of my initiatives can be enacted to some degree through creating Presidential departments.

Did God create a document which brought upon us the Civil War by proving unable to resolve the state-slavery issue or to establish the proper conditions and procedures for states to adapt government to meet their needs without a civil war? Original intent assumes the old document is better than the new, which is simply not true. The constitution is constantly adapting to our needs and accumulated wisdom.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.6

Secure wireless networks

We all know how easy it is for anyone to drive into our neighborhood and hack into our wireless networks within minutes using freely available programs on the internet. I suggest that we have our networks hop passphrases. The transmitters and receivers are given a passphrase database and hop schedule via USB so that they all hop to the same passphrases at the same times several times per second. Eavesdroppers will have no idea when the passphrases change, when they will be used again, or that they are changing, except that as they attempt to assemble the passphrase, the pieces change. They will be unable to listen long enough to determine any complete passphrase, or even if they did, to use it for more than a split-second, literally.

Right of Separation and Constitutional Relevance

The right to leave the union assumes that the union allows this peacefully. Force gives no moral rights, thus by force anyone may dissolve any political bands whether or not they have this right. To secure the moral right, the union must violate some inalienable right or the constitution which binds the union. The right of individual agency to act and judge with sovereignty is an inalienable right, not a political right. If political powers attempt to remove this inalienable individual right, then the individual and his state retain thu right to forcefully oppose this defiance of nature. To secure any right (moral or not) as a political right, all political powers must surrender their commitment to forceful opposition. Colonies earned their political right to separation by convincing (usually only possible by force) Britain to release her claim upon their governance. States are justified in rebellion and separation from the union when defending their citizen's rights of representation and suffrage, or other issues of justice which which the union forcefully opposes. On that note, if the union forcefully enforces submission to a just constitution or to just laws, such as the protection of her citizens from slavery, the states who oppose this use of force are not justified in holding grievances against her. By this argument, the Southern States of America stand corrected. There was never any violation of the constitution, and their cause of perpetuating slavery was unjust, therefore they had no moral right to separation.

If the constitution were ignored (as my father also believes), then all laws supported by it would crumble; without the constitutional foundation, the entire government must immediately collapse. Even if the "ignoring" is not misinterpreting, then the parts being ignored are isolated and not likely to be important "cornerstones." Either way, this perception provides clear evidence of the need for re-engineering because it reveals that the judicial branch lacks the power to defend and uphold the constitution. We need you to help re-engineer the constitution to give the courts sufficient power to uphold the constitution as we intend it to be interpreted and in no other way. The constitution works, not because the citizenry police their government, but because of checks and balances, she (government) polices herself. Failures in checking government is not our fault, but the fault of a constitution which needs re-balancing of powers (like a regular car tune-up). That "paper" has real power whether Bush or anyone else chooses to believe it or not. For one thing, it gave him the power to do what he did, otherwise no one would call him President or obey his orders.

The reason that a larger body has become so corrupt by mob rule is because representatives do not derive their power from the people and are so free to be sold out to the highest contributing special interest groups. I have an effective amendment correcting that problem. PS: The Californians who are "people migrating from places of tyranny to places of freedom" are by definition political refugees, though not in the sense of exiles or fugitives.

While uniform, universal law has been abused (see Hitler, WW2) and is no argument by itself, the promises of a well-written constitution are great if government can be held to check all those who would corrupt or ignore the re-engineered constitution. The alternative is to do nothing or constantly run (voting with our feet) from local mobs, cartels, and tyrants, wherever we go. Isolation is not acceptable, so why not continually make a stand here and now (instead of feet voting) and improve the current political system so that tyrants less easily thrive and justice reigns with greater power?

I think that a strong central state preserves a stronger union and the re-engineered justices at all levels of justices. Rest assured that I hold zero tolerance for wealth distribution, yet it is clear that resources must be pooled for the benefit of the society as a whole, and not of small factions who would have us believe that their benefit is our benefit, too. Rest assured that we can engineer a constitution which cannot be interpreted except to advance good and harm evil.

Infrastructure and exclusive contracts

The people encourage competition by separating infrastructure from services. Any company may use infrastructure at the same price as any other company, non-exclusively. Infrastructure must be owned by companies independent and wholly separate from any company which uses it. Infrastructure includes phone lines, cell phone towers, data lines, power lines, road, satellites, etc. which connect more than one business or residence.

No company may offer a contract exclusively nor discriminate with a different fee schedule, except with direct competitors.

Medical care amendment

The people declare the importance of medical care in establishing the general welfare and insuring domestic tranquility. We declare it unlawful for any company to collect information regarding their own employees' medical insurance. Each company must pay their medical benefits directly to their employees in the form of medical benefits vouchers payable to the employee's choice of eligible medical insurance company located anywhere in the country. The insurance company may not record or collect employment related information in any way or for any purpose, including the name of the employer.

The federation and the tyrant

My primary purpose in examining the constitution uf the USA is to look at the current operational shortcomings to determine systematic failures and their root causes. Once these have been identified, it is then quite natural to create amendments which remove the systematic problems and therefore perfect the constitution. When there are no more issues with the government, then the system is perfected, and the officers of government will be acting in harmony with the laws of nature and the will of the people in equality.

The more perfect union is a federal system with the states subject to the will of the union (the current USA), though the states do influence the union in the senate. While the union brings synergy and stability, the civil war well-established that states were not free to leave, and that the union does not derive its powers (i.e. answer to) the states. If "the United States is a voluntary union among several free and independent states," then she would have dissolved long ago. Clearly a confederate USA would be quite similar to the EU, which has not existed for very long. While the federation was not set-up as "the product of conquest or coercion," the North has clearly changed all that with her Civil War.

In a confederation, Aristotle warns of the dangers of mob rule in the smaller, regional political bodies of the states. It was quite common for states to go to great excesses in land re-possession of the American Indians, racial slavery, segregation. and denial of suffrage, and even exterminate people for their beliefs. The federation is the more stable system, and it brings domestic tranquility by diffusing the power of local mobs (political factions) across a larger body politic. The founders behind the confederation were as wrong as the ones who delayed the Bill of Rights. However smart they were, they lacked the experience of several hundred years of seeing how things worked with their new system while moving into a modern, electronic era.

Removing power from the federal government merely creates a power vacuum to be filled by the state (or local governments) and we know well that each are just as ready to abuse that power. At least on the federal level, we may achieve uniformity, predictability, equality among states, and universal fairness with just standards immune to local "politics."

It would be good to set the same standards fairness on all levels of government: for instance, wealth does not influence government to greater privilege (notice lobbying or "vote" buying) or to greater (or less .. see loopholes) taxation.

The states do not enjoy the right of separation now, whether or not they had the right before. The Civil War essentially changed the constitution, not altered in what it said, but in how it is interpreted. The current interpretation is what matters most because we are reforming the current system ... it is the only system that we understand by our own experience and thus it is our only true basis from which to work, besides the less intimate lessons of history. Should we assume that the earlier interpretation (lacking the experience which brought us to Civil War) was better? No. In fact, I think it was far worse. A less perfect union of fragile alliances.

Mob rule is more dangerous in smaller groups because the zealous extremist factions hold a much larger percentage of the vote and of influence. In larger groups, the various local factions hold different interests, and thus loose power through the diversity of interests throughout the various regions. Voting with the feet (political refugees) worked in old times, but the purpose of this document is to create no safe haven for political injustice. The problem is not the amount of power but the laws governing its use.

When tyrants cannot pull the trigger without being sure that the gun was NOT aimed at his own head, then he will not pull it and he CEASES to be a tyrant (no opportunity); this is the purpose of making government blind .. it can't target anyone without targeting everyone, including the tyrant himself. Read my amendments closely and I think you will see that it is possible to disable the tyrant and mob rule while protecting and advancing both freedom and justice in a democracy.

Noncompulsory government health care

Government insurance of medical care promotes the general welfare and to establish domestic tranquility. Nothing like the fear of sickness and death to bring people to the streets in violence. No one says that the government has to administer it or give away freebies, but loosing or switching health care from sudden, massive unemployment is quite nerve-rackingly untranquil (if that is a word). Imagine a world where company benefits are paid in salary and medical care is administered directly by third-party health care companies who are barred by law against obtaining employment information. Imagine companies who are barred by law from learning about your health care plan, administrator, etc.

Obviously government sponsored/subsidized health care promotes the welfare of the wolves who find their lunches in the hands of the others (non-wolves or sheep, if you will). I strongly echo your argument. Government can promote the general welfare without the entitlements by increasing free market competition, benefit transparency and carry-over between jobs, and medical benefit privacy. Government must by the preamble promote the general welfare (i.e. of medical care and education) without slaves or inequality through forced labor or wealth distribution. I believe that Ricco intended as much, or else hopefully by our arguments now intends it. Such is my mission, anyhow, and it appears quite doable to me.

Defense of proposed amendments

The first proposed amendment relieves the pressure on the voter to oppose issues about which their exists neither interest nor opinion. This places the burden of informing and rallying the people (all of them) on the advocates of each bill. Bills pass when the nation is brought together behind them for a more perfect union (#1) and thus we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (#6).

The second proposed amendment binds representatives to represent the people (and not Senators) and not rich special interest, big business, etc. This establishes justice (#2) by returning the power of the people to the people so that the powerful cannot harness the people's power for their own good as they have done with the recent "bailouts" to disastrous proportions. Representatives must bring the people into politics and unify them to exercise their powers, and thus this amendment acts in order to form a more perfect union (#1).

The third proposed amendment moderates filibusters and legislative ramming with healthy debate that insures domestic tranquility (#3).

The fourth proposed amendment a flat tax establishes justice (#2) by leveling the playing field and removing discrimination. It takes the accountability off the people in order to insure domestic tranquility (#3).

The fifth proposed amendment brings fiscal responsibility to establish domestic security (#3) from alarming levels of debt while enabling debt in times of emergency in order to provide for the common defense (#4). The younger are protected from bearing heavy debt brought on by the immediate-gratification and foolish greed of the older (#6), thus establishing some fairness and justice (#2).

The sixth proposed amendment establishes justice (#2) by blind legislation through privacy protection.

Latter amendments to follow are defense of competition (#3 & #5 below) on infrastructure, property, and services, and defense of freedom in education (#2 & #5 below) for teacher, student, and parent alike.

For reference:
1) in order to form a more perfect union
2) establish justice
3) insure domestic tranquility
4) provide for the common defense
5) promote the general welfare
6) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

The constitution of the USA fails the People

The representatives care little about the will of the people and civil liberties appear to be slipping away with each advance of government power.  Elections are rigged and the constitution is failing to protect the People from corruption of government.

The most effective method of improving the constitution is likely the addition of a few amendments to perfect the document, lest the nation slip into anarchy and chaos as her constitution is dissolved or replaced. Below are my proposals for amendments which remove the injustice and strengthen freedom in democracy:

1) The people recognize that failure to participate in an election constitutes a lack of support for the items and candidates to public office in question. Those who fail to participate must have default negative votes recorded as being in opposition to each respective issue and person. Votes in favor must exceed 50% of the registered voters to be accepted by government as a majority support of the item or candidate. No longer shall any person feel compelled to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in order to stop a small faction from advancing a great evil. On the other hand, the people must be allowed to register and change their votes with a national, bio-metric voter ID at any time before the election.

2) The people require their representatives to represent the majority of their constituents. Representatives may not vote in favor of any bill without the majority support of their constituents. Neither may they contradict the established will of the majority. If the majority have established opposition to a bill, the representatives must obtain majority support for any revision of it. If the majority favors a bill, the representative must oppose revisions which lack majority support from their constituents.

3) The people require sufficient quality deliberation of each bill. Both the house and the senate must each deliberate on each bill for no longer than two hours per 24 hours and no less than six hours before final vote with all members present; with no less than three hours dedicated to members in opposition.

4) The people establish freedom from individual accountability for taxation, and pass this accountability at a flat rate to businesses. Taxation must be imposed only by one single flat rate and only on businesses, once for every financial transaction upon the "seller," which title shall default to the provider of the greater value of products, or if they be equal, then of services. The tax rate is adjusted and collected monthly to exactly balance the cost of each spending bill and to implement debt elimination.

5) The people demand a balanced budget where tax revenue is directly tied to spending bills. If the debt exceeds 30% of the revenue, it must be paid off within ten years, otherwise it must be paid off in three years. Government may not enter into debt except, as required, in preparation of military defense against invading forces. The people require fiscal responsibility of their government by a balanced budget with active debt avoidance and elimination.

6) The people require fair governance and blind justice by active government defense of individual privacy, except as needed to prosecute the violation of law in court, or as needed to establish identity. To that end, no law, order, or policy by government shall consider nor cause to be recorded: age, gender, race, medical history or genealogy, physical appearance, religion, political affiliation, wealth or property, income or employment, business or residence history or itinerary, or any other attribute which may be used to single out any person or group smaller than the majority of the population over which the governing document applies.

7) The people encourage competition by separating infrastructure from services. All services will have equal access to infrastructure at the same prices. No company may offer a contract exclusively nor discriminate with a different fee schedule. We require the terms of all business contracts to be published openly and to allow all businesses equal access to the same terms. Any company may use any existing infrastructure at the same price as any other company, non-exclusively. Infrastructure must be owned by companies independent and wholly separate from any company which uses it. Infrastructure includes phone lines, cell phone towers, data lines, power lines, road, satellites, etc. which connect more than one business or residence.

8 ) The people declare the importance of medical care in establishing the general welfare and insuring domestic tranquility. We declare it unlawful for any company to collect information regarding their own employees' medical insurance. Each company must pay their medical benefits directly to their employees in the form of medical benefits vouchers payable to the employee's choice of eligible medical insurance company located anywhere in the country. The insurance company may not record or collect employment related information in any way or for any purpose, including the name of the employer.

9a) The people require the government to issue school vouchers to every child, to receive minor children (1-18 years old) from 7am to 4pm Monday through Friday with counselors who take full responsibility and sole for the children from the time that the children step on the bus/campus to the time they step off it. Any company many bring teachers onto campus, or have the children driven to their campus. A child may choose any teacher for any subject so long as the core subjects are covered, regardless of company affiliation. The government retains the right and responsibility to send counselors with the children and to take children back to the government campus for discipline or other reasons. The government may not employee teachers, nor rate them, nor take any part in the teacher appraisal process. Government must however provide public forums for teachers to be rated and appraised by students, by parents, and by student tests, respectively. Students must be tested in the core subjects every day and have access at any time to sample tests for that day.

9b) In defense of educational freedom, the teacher always retains the right to remove any student from the class for any reason and for any duration. Government must ensure that if students are not in class, in testing, or in studying/tutoring, then they are given access to remedial tutoring based on testing results, or else to a wide variety of fun educational, or physical activities. Discipline or police action supersedes all these student rights.

9c) Minor children must be transported to campus in vehicles if they have to cross a road with greater than two lanes to get to school. If a student spends their entire day on a non-government campus, they may be transported from home directly to and from that campus.

9d) Students will be tested on real-world application and problem-solving for each subject that they have already passed in primary and secondary schools. Government testers shall have no other role than to create, administer, grade, and publish reports on all tests in qualified subjects. Testers shall create (if needed) and administer multiple versions of their tests throughout each day to prevent cheating. Tests must not require more than 30 minutes or less than 5 minutes to complete. Tests must be approved and published for nationwide use with at least one corresponding sample test no sooner than 24 hours before the test is to be administered. Test evaluation for approval must be complete no longer than 24 hours after it has been submitted, complete with all reasons for rejection, if that is the case. Tests will be evaluated by local boards of testers. The same sample tests must be used for all versions of the same test. No test may be used more than once per year, and never in the same month that it was used the previous year so that the version cannot be predicted or known prior to entry in any testing environment. They shall administer tests in a room without cellular signal reception. Students, teachers, and testers may separately rate each test on a public government forum.

10) The people embrace identity as the glue of civilization, and the weapon against criminals and their prized weapon of darkness and anonymity. The government shall establish a system for identifying every person on her territories using biometrics and other technologies in conjunction with RFID or other wireless broadcast technologies, which are highly resistant to identity theft. It shall be unlawful for any citizen to prevent this network from establishing the true identity of any other citizen. The government shall ensure that every citizen may use this technology to identify any citizen at any time and in a timely and detailed manner. It shall be unlawful for any government or other organization, or their agents, to use this technology to engage in refuse to engage in commerce or to engage in provocation on the basis of race, gender, age, wealth, profession or income, religion, or political affiliation.

• I have amendments in-progress regarding the rights of minors and CPS, and another regarding compulsory government-run education. The constitution poorly deals with minors and their education, information technology and intellectual property, and identity establishment.

---

Andy's commentary For reference: 1) in order to form a more perfect union 2) establish justice 3) insure domestic tranquility 4) provide for the common defense 5) promote the general welfare 6) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

My 2nd amendment proposal applies only to representatives and not to senators, thus checks and balances are enhanced. Representatives must seek out the public will or serve without legislative power. The people establish themselves as the sole object of representation in the house, and dismiss special interests and big business from usurping their power in that body. No one dictates the issues that the reps choose to promote to the people or bring to their attention. If the people feel strongly enough to force their reps' hands with a majority support of all registered voters of each respective district over a majority of the districts, then there is still the senate to stop them, unless there is a house super-majority.

The first proposed amendment relieves the pressure on the voter to oppose issues about which their exists neither interest nor opinion. This places the burden of informing and rallying the people (all of them) on the advocates of each bill. Bills pass when the nation is brought together behind them for a more perfect union (#1) and thus we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (#6).

The second proposed amendment binds representatives to represent the people (and not Senators) and not rich special interest, big business, etc. This establishes justice (#2) by returning the power of the people to the people so that the powerful cannot harness the people's power for their own good as they have done with the recent "bailouts" to disastrous proportions. Representatives must bring the people into politics and unify them to exercise their powers, and thus this amendment acts in order to form a more perfect union (#1).

The third proposed amendment moderates filibusters and legislative ramming with healthy debate that insures domestic tranquility (#3).

The fourth proposed amendment a flat tax establishes justice (#2) by leveling the playing field and removing discrimination. It takes the accountability off the people in order to insure domestic tranquility (#3).

The fifth proposed amendment brings fiscal responsibility to establish domestic security (#3) from alarming levels of debt while enabling debt in times of emergency in order to provide for the common defense (#4). The younger are protected from bearing heavy debt brought on by the immediate-gratification and foolish greed of the older (#6), thus establishing some fairness and justice (#2).

The sixth proposed amendment establishes justice (#2) by blind legislation through privacy protection.

Latter amendments to follow are defense of competition (#3 & #5 below) on infrastructure, property, and services, and defense of freedom in education (#2 & #5 below) for teacher, student, and parent alike.

The role of morality in government and our laws

Everyone has their own definition of morality, but is there an objective standard? I see the beginnings of one in the foundations of a few ideas:

Desire, the foundation of our inalienable agency: Wanting what cannot be - to defy nature. Wanting without working. Wanting to build and grow to full potential. Nature is the only moral path.

Family, the foundation of sustenance, security, and social synergy: Submission being the tool of tyrants through the abdication of responsibility; the futile attempt to dismiss one's own inalienable judgment, responsibility, and desires for those of another. Mutual respect unlocks the beauty and power of society from the family to the state.

Faith, the foundation of growth: Ignorance holds the premise that knowledge can truly exist without, or even contrary to, experience. Experience is required for accurate, and complete understanding, and those who would deny experience prefer to maintain a monopoly on social power. Faith is a student's learning tool through the assumption of unsupported facts, not a manifestation of knowledge or spiritual development.

The respective virtues then seem to be: Natural desire for industry and development/ascension, social equality and mutual respect, and lastly, faith as a developmental tool for obtaining experience.

Government is the law, and Good government is moral laws. Therefore, laws must support personal industry and growth in social equality with faith that experience will educate and ascend the masses.

Education reform

Students ought to be grouped by common attributes in the subjects of their studies respectively. Age-based grade levels make sense for physical activities like PE, literature, art, and recreation/play. Intellectual-based grade levels make sense for intellectual subjects like math and language, while IQ-based grade levels follow subjects which develop problem solving and learning, such as science and engineering; both of which are typically introduced far too late in the children's lives to allow even modest development. No subject should immediately follow another of the same genre, and no teacher should be allowed to test or discipline the same students which they teach. Furthermore, testing, accounting, and discipline are so different from teaching that they disrupt it greatly, and therefore logically belong to a class of teachers which I will call Class Administrators, who know the students by name and also serve as their advocate with each teacher. Then arises the need for practical development of their skills; separate from academia and married with industry.

And then there is the question of why we don't have school choice already!

Nuclear Defense

A strong offense is the first line of security. We have that, and shrinking our nuclear arsenal does not advance our security, unless it is in exchange for the second line of security, a good defense. This is where the short (foreign-based missile), medium (air/space-based laser), and long-ranged (home-based missile) missile defense system makes sense. If their nuclear power is required, then go nuclear! Peace through power.

Our Republic

I assert that it is not meaningless to distinguish American government as a republic, because the common form of government is not a republic, but a parliament; there being very important and profound distinctions between the two. Now the claim originally cited would be true if the implied word "just" were inserted as follows: "America is a republic, not JUST a democracy." But why is a republic so different from a parliament, that America finds herself so unique from the traditional political mechanisms of Europe and Japan? What other country in the world has a republican president, like America? The answers to these questions begin us on the journey of discovering the truths of political freedom and government. They also illuminate the deep psychological need of Americans to distinguish the republican form of their government from the rest of the world; on that note, observe that Iraq adopted the parliamentary and not republican form of democracy, as has been the legacy of the UN (Europe) for all previous government organizations/establishments.

Now I must add that any claim of democracy is removed from the idea of rule by the people. In statistics, numbers have no meaning, but are only representations of observations with respect to a weighted basis. Technically, every number must move beyond the object it is measuring and declare the weighted standard with respect to which it has been measured. Similarly, (and this is a crucial point) the rule of the people is always with respect to something (the simplest being my view for democracy, and being unpracticed since the beginning of time). The senate brings the loosely represented rule of the people (who voted) with respect to their division among the fifty states, while the House brings the loosely represented rule of the people with respect to those who vote. Loosely represented because the representatives are granted power to disregard the will of the people at their every whim and fancy; personally, I would not prefer to use the term "representation" when speaking of any existing political process, including America's. Then there is the parliament's party-based, proportionally allocated (by electoral support) system for claiming the democratic, rule of the people. Nevertheless, I wish to make it clear that I am not advocating the rule of the people, but the rule of the individuals in equality.

BTW, just as a side note, America was formed as a confederation, not a federation, and without the limitations of the Bill of Rights (for a substantial period of time). The only reason she was limited was because she was young. Limited in powers, not authority, as an empty book is limited in content, not in ink supplies; it was just a matter of time before the pages were filled, and the weight began to crush the table (her citizens which support her).

Socialized medicine

So we hear the democrats advocating social health care insurance with great zeal and Republicans balking at the same with election year fervor. But don't be intimidated by the emotions, and the intentionally deceptive rhetoric, because the entire issue boils down to very simple principles after we consider the basis of human nature itself.
Anything on a massive scale is difficult to understand and national health care is on that scale. Also, risk is difficult to see, because it is a game of probabilities, so insurance is also a concept which is not real to most people either. Put them together as national health care insurance and we have a massively unreal agenda. If you want proof about socialized medicine, I invite you to join the US Army. Anyone who has ever served our country honorably for eight years will readily attest to the deficiencies of socialized medicine .. at least, once they realize that this is the only kind of medicine available to servicemen within the Armed Forces (socialized) network. It may keep you alive, but there is much more to life than just being alive. Short of joining the services, no amount of "data" (all statistics are interpreted, anyhow) will convey the reality of socialized health care, but philosophy can shed some light on the possibilities by bringing it into the framework that we can all understand: individualized value. While discussion of the value, sacrifice, resources, training, technology, and risks in light of human nature and its basis in the free market for civilization thoroughly refutes socialism in all its forms, the philosophy of equality simplifies everything down to the question, "Is it right to force a man at gun point to give to another, simply because he has something to be given to someone who desires it with justification for any cause?" Now health appears to be a noble cause, as do a great many other agendas, but life is not so important to kill equality, freedom, and civilization. Now some may say that a thief is not a thief when the law supports him, but I say that such laws are equally criminal in suppressing one group for the benefit of another, regardless of the means employed (suppression implying the use of any form[s] of coercion). Finally, just as national insurance is a cover for theft (unless government puts down her guns and enters the business world of free competition), so also are "incentives" a cover for bribery and enslavement; make no mistake that when the grip of greedy weakens and falls off, the guns just as quickly rise. Now don't let my gun analogies be taken to literally, because the lack of resistance averts mortal combat, but make no mistake that compliance alone does NOT imply freedom or volition. For the gun is always the principle motivator when the sovereign individual refuses to surrender to the mercy of the government, her agents, and her prisons. Now, don't get me wrong, health care is wonderful, but only when it supports the more beautiful happiness of freedom, earned value, and responsibility. The responsibility of government has nothing to do with the health of her citizens, but notice the only phrase in the preamble is the one which I identified as being the most abused for agendas unrelated to the founder's intent: promote the general welfare .. I hope that no one here would challenge the idea that the founding fathers had not envisioned any form or degree of social medicine, or social anything for that matter, in their construction of the constitution.

"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true." Ayn Rand

Objective, Good government is defined by nature herself

Concerning the idea of objectively-defined Good government, the big questions on your minds is now, probably, Accepting the position that Inquiry, Independence and Acceptance are in fact the fundamental principles of the laws of humanity, How do they define the Good Government? The answer is that the constitution must require government to act in defense of human nature (universal, individual rights of human nature), but not of human bias, and must restrain it from all other actions (being against human nature, i.e. civil rights).

From these three pillars extends the natural laws of equality of suffrage (including government by full majority), of privacy, identity, and property, and of equality in taxation and services, just to name a few of the complete and comprehency system defined by it. Just to kick off the discussion, I will allow these pillars to cast light on problems with the current (and therefore also past) American democracy, with all due respect to her superiority in many other aspects of government.

Inquiry, Independance, Acceptance brings the natural laws of:

Equality of Suffrage
1) Equality of suffrage does not exist within any nation on earth, including the USA, even with the women's suffrage and black suffrage movements successes. How many people are ignored by the government regarding her policies? Furthermore, how many representatives and how many laws do NOT represent the expressed will of the majority of the population? I answer, "Most of them." for all three questions.

Privacy, identity, and property
2) Familiar with the IRS? So much for privacy. Ever heard of identity theft? And where did property rights go with the property tax, easements, squatter's rights, and paid nationalization? Why is the law so problematic concerning intellectual property rights, patents, and piracy?

Finally, taxation and servies
3) Obviously, the current American system is hardly equal or fair to any substantial degree on these issues.

"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true." Ayn Rand