My Political Position: A Thesis

LustfulAngel · 2012-01-27T19:00:09-01:00

One wonders, what is the role and function of Government and how can Government best benefit a society? In my mind, Government's responsibility is to create the ideal situation for his country to flourish. Government's responsibility is to ensure the domestic prosperity of his people, and thereby the domestic prosperity of the country. To settle disagreements through negotiations and when negotiations fail, to take the precautions necessary both to protect the homeland and those brave and courageous enough to fight for the homeland. Let it be made clear though, that government's responsibility is not "to take care of you", but rather to create a situation where you can take care of yourself. Hence, we look at Social Security and Medicaid, hundreds of millions of Americans are on these programs and hundreds of millions of Americans cannot take care of themselves or enjoy their own individual prosperity. We look at Food Stamps and other "assistance" programs, rather than assist they handicap our development and eventually force us to decline into dependance. It's clear that when the State starts to take the position of taking "care" of someone, it devalues it's own citizens and thereby it's own existence. The Soviet Union was bound to collapse one day or another, the people would get tired of being peasants. The Soviet Government wouldn't be able to save face under such cronyism and corruption and hence the Berlin Wall fell. At the same time, the very topic of face is very important when discussing the role and capabilities of government. A Government can only create a Social State of Productivity when it has proper face. Had the Obama Administration continued to support grassroot politics and ideas in 2009/2010, it's wholly possible that Republican opposition and third party opposition would be neutered and a second term would be easily accomplished. Obama had the Face, to be able to accomplish significant social changes. The People wanted it from a financial standpoint, he decided to not only go towards the opposite direction with the Health Care Bill, but his legislation effectively said: If you don't comply, you'll be incarcerated. Threatening the lives of your constituents isn't exactly a good way to get re-elected. These last four years have been a very great example of Face and what one can do with it and what one can do to squander it. Obama squandered a great opportunity, and now he goes along the ranks of Presidents Carter and Bush instead of Lincoln and Jefferson. Being fair to President Obama and to support my position as well:The position of Neutral Leadership and Universal Freedom is a flawed position. Neutral Leadership: What is Neutral Leadership? In America, we have a great example of Neutral Leadership. Where you've got the two parties going against each other. You've got the House and the Senate and the Supreme Courts. All of these powers go against each other, known as the Checks and Balances system. It's great to have a Checks and Balances system right? It's great to make sure that our elected officials don't go crazy and call the FBI, CIA, etc on us at whim and decide to shoot us at gun point as in Stalin Soviet Union, right? But here's the problem: While we don't want them to go crazy and kill us and stuff, we also want them to be effective at what they do and simply put: This system is not effective at all. Through lobbyists, even if you have a Democratic Regime it's wholly possible for significant Republican gains and legislation.(IE: Some Democrats supporting Republican Legislation.) Not exactly what you voted for, is it? Furthermore, through the whole debating process and the deadlocks. As the Liberals have correctly pointed out: Nothing gets done. When Partisan Politics overtakes the ideals of looking after your state, your district and ultimately this country Government has lost Face in all of it's basic functions. So when there were reports about Government shutdown and that we had to avert this? In my mind, through our political apathy, through political bribes and payoffs and Partisan Politics as it's never before been seen in America: Government has shut down, probably since the end of the Second World War. Then there's the Veto Process, where the Founding Fathers didn't entrust the President insofar as to make the correct decisions. In another post, I explained about the flawed Veto Process and how if Congress really wanted to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in America, it could face no resistance from Obama. Well, it'd take a little longer but it'd get done. Congress can Impeach the President, but can you impeach Congress? Congress is a body, not one singular man. Good luck holding the entire Congress siege, especially with the Secret Service, FBI, ETC. Our system is in effect a de-facto dictatorship. Oh to be sure, you can pick out a plum or two but I'm talking about the body, the institution itself when the institution goes against the law. There's no Leadership, at best there are lawmakers. But insofar as they make the law, they don't uphold the law's standards. And therefore it's not law but rather a diktat. With no Leadership/Neutral Leadership, The American People are a chicken without a head. What made the Republic work back in the late 17th-18th century was that the Founding Fathers knew on what principles America was established on and the American People also knew those principles and had the political balls to hold them to account. The Founders, knowing about Face not only allowed but embraced this as the lynchpin to keep the Country intact. The People today, neither know about these principles nor do they have the political balls to hold our lawmakers into account. Even insofar as ignoring a return to Constitutional values but trying to create a Liberal Society or a Xenophobic State such as the Neo-'Conservatives' idealize, neither Liberals nor Neo-Con "supporters" hold their lawmakers to account. This brings us to the second Flawed Position: Universal Freedom Universal Freedom, Political Apathy and the downfall of America Universal Freedom is a concept that first erected in the 12th century when the Magna Carta was brought forth to then King George to sign. As well as the Founding Fathers declaring that all men are created universally equal by their creator and they are promised individual Human rights of the right to prosperity, The right to express themselves religiously freely or in any other case as well. The only binding restriction be, that these freedoms are extended only to the extent where you attempt to rob another person of his well being, his right of expression and his right of life. Sounds like a very good concept right? Well, there's nothing wrong with the concept itself. Except the Freedom to make a Choice is equated with the Responsibility of the Decision. At the time of the Renaissance, a great political and intellectual time that brought us wonderful thinkers like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein as well as the Founders they knew this full well and hence a Universal Freedom position could be held. But what about today? Do the People understand that their choices have consequences? Perhaps in the sense that it's an age-old mantra and they've heard it Ad Nauseum but they don't apply it. Take a look at the credit card and housing market crisis's. That certainly doesn't look like a civilization and an era of responsibility. Today, we'd like to eliminate the responsibility that comes with Universal Freedom and just have the Universal Freedom concept. But that can't be held because without that responsibility, the entire structure falls. Where we've suffered this structure fall can't be anymore evidenced than Political Apathy. As mentioned above, I hold the position that the people's Political Apathy and consequently their political intellect has put the country in a most grave position. Not only are most Americans pitifully unaware of this nation's origins, the reasons and the whys. But they aren't motivated to learn or find out. Political Soundbytes would be irrelevant if the American People had the tiniest bit of interest in Politics. If the People themselves ignored CNN, MSNBC for a day and just read up on a political position and see if they themselves could fit that lifestyle. Politics, is the same as selecting a personal doctor, or going clothes shopping. It affects you, so stop dawdling and picking X candidate because Fox News or CNN told you to damn it! Their personal opinions are theirs and in most cases it isn't even theirs! Ever heard of a script? We're getting the most political support from X candidate, so let's be sure to feature him the most. Of course, none of this is new, everyone knows about corruption and this is actually a main point in Political Apathy: Because it's corrupt, people are like: Who cares, our voices don't matter anyway. You're right, they don't matter: Because you shut your voices up. When you march, and you march in numbers things happen. The problem is, even after a successful political activism campaign. You're like "Yay, we won the battle now let's go back to watching American Idol." But the battle is never over, it's never won. Politics is constant, politics is leadership. Politics is like your economic management strategy. You're always considering your financial situation. You must also always consider who your leaders are and what they stand for, or if they're leaders at all or just lawmakers. We have too many lawmakers and very few leaders. We also have a lot of followers in this country. This is a perfect political storm for the kind of cronyism we're seeing in America today and what was experienced in the Soviet Union. It's not all your fault, you didn't come to this country(and it wasn't the Fathers intent) for you to overly regulate your leaders and for you to constantly consider the government. When you HAVE to constantly consider the government, you're in the state that America is in right now. We need regulation, and we need political spirit and activity. But we also need leadership, rather than lawmakers. Head of States, rather than Politicians. Enter in Guided Governance, or Fascism Let me begin off by saying a True Fascist doesn't believe in dictatorship or cronyism, a dictating state falls on it's own hubris, needing both the productivity and the general satisfaction of the people to keep itself afloat. Most dictatorship, crony systems simply focus on their own end and not on the people. Not even insofar as to appease them. You'd be a dictator if you wanted unopposed rule for 2-4 years, then go into exile. All Heads of States who manage to be in power for decades and years have either heavily supported their people or politically made the case that they did so. And if I'm to be honest: The ideal form of government is one of this nature. We go from Democrat, to Republican or Republican to Democrat: Where's the consistency to get anything going? Is there a true nation-wide view that we hold? An image we believe in? Not only is there no consistency, but these parties by their nature cannot invoke political spirit in us. For the People to exercise their rights, and for the people to take interest in their country they must be invoked to do so. And that's what Fascism can do. Fascism is the decision that Freedom does indeed have consequences, we should therefore guide the people in using freedom so as to avert as many consequences as possible. So for example: If our Government(our leaders) are decent, honest people. It encourages us to become decent, honest people. If our government strives for excellence, it encourages us to strive for excellence. In becoming the symbol of the State, we revive the American State and the American People who for all intents and purposes are dead and dormant. If our government can make the correct decisions and guide the country and govern it, for what reason would we have to be involved? There would be no reason, except out of the principle that we have to constantly be aware. But now, we don't have to focus on it as much in a Fascist system, we just have to be aware. There's a difference between Constant Awareness and Daily Awareness. Right now, there's a political need to be Constantly Aware of the Government. A Fascist Government can take down the political need several fold and return us to being able to mainly focus on our own prosperity. Our Government right now has no leadership, no symbol, no pride and certainly no honor and integrity. We shouldn't be too surprised at our economic and social state given these truisms, in fact we should expect such decline. But if we take a Fascist position of Governance, wouldn't I lose rights? That depends on what you'd call rights. You have the right to work at the place of your choice, you have the right to freedom of speech, you have the right to exercise freedom of religion or spirituality. The basic tenants of Human Rights would not fall by the wayside under a Fascist Position. What a Fascist says, is this: "You have the freedom to do anything you want, as long as it's productive for the Individual and for the Country". That's it, that's the only restriction. That whatever you endeavor is productive in some way or shape for you and for your fellow citizens. So, for example when you're working at UPS, UPS is a company that helps people ship items all across the world. You're helping international trade and you're helping the world community as a whole as well as yourself. This is productive. But when another person works as a Stock Exchange person looking at Nasdaq's numbers(or even the very existence of Nasdaq)that's a selfish, non-productive job. There's nothing he's producing, there isn't a product that made our way of life better. He's a virtual black hole in the economy. He is the Unaccounted Liability that's not counted among the unaccounted liabilities. And there are hundreds like him making hundreds of millions of dollars! So that 75 trillion in unaccounted liabilities in my political opinion is actually quite the bit higher. The same goes for his counterpart in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. The trillions they rob of the world economy is a huge part of the problem of the recession/depression. Not to say that his right to earn a living is any less than another person's, it's just that his right to earn a living has to actually produce something for others to produce as well. You can't have a healthy economy otherwise, production begets production. Anything sucked into a black hole never returns and so the same is true for the broker and the hundreds of thousands he takes home that should have better gone to charity or to some other worthy cause, at least then it would've meant something. Does this mean athletes? Actually, no. While they may not have a global brand per say(Though the NBA/NFL/NHL have tried to and have in many cases successfully marketed their brand on the global market place.) They do have a very local base. In other words, the city of Los Angeles is enjoying alot of revenue from Lakers/Clippers games. Here, in Philadelphia, with four major sport teams that generates alot of revenue and Philadelphia is the fourth major economic market in the U.S. Athletes have a very rare skillset and have set the market for themselves. If organizations continue to support athletes and if they have the money to continue paying the rates they do, who am I or anyone to stop them? That creates unrest, it devalues the State and therefore isn't a Fascist Position. It might not seem fair, but with economic adjustment we can bridge the gap between Middle America and the Rich. In fact, we can accomplish the ultimate goal of Fascism: Making a True America. Remember, anything that's not productive is not a Fascist Position and certainly wouldn't be upheld by a Fascist Government. Therefore, the current economic model where a CEO earns 500 X that of the Middle Class American would be torn down and rebuilt through economic experts not tied to any one corporation or franchise. That CEO earning 500 X of the Middle Class is not someone who has made his own market or brand. Nor is he really being "paid" per say that money, so others aren't creating such a glamorous market where he deserves to make what he's being "paid". He's really robbing the economy of America of it's money and stuffing his own pocket. CEOS of this type are tycoons, and they are the worst of the poisonous cancers that have crept into America. These guys are the ones who will ship their money overseas, move their families to some other country while the country faces hardship and he's not going to weep one little bit about America. Maybe the corporation has generated a successful brand and a successful market, but why should the CEO get the credit to the extent of making 500 X his own workers!? They're the ones who actually did the work. They're entitled to more than the scrap heap. In the place of the tycoon, the Government would look for CEO'S who stand as examples of honor, dignity and leadership. Who acknowledge that it wasn't they alone who made the company great but it was the workers who excellently carried out the game-plan for selling and advertising their brand. So the benefits of a Fascist Government are as followed: 1) No more corruption, stagnation of government: No more hundreds of other politicians with their bribed compromised asses compromising the country with them. No more conflicts of second and third parties, but rather one party, one vision, one dream: An American Dream. 2)With Guided Freedom as a principle, Human Economic Rights are restored in America. With the Tycoon and the Broker eliminated from American life, you're no longer robbed of 85% of the economy. It's now actually possible for you to be making hundreds of thousands a year, and thousands in weekly/bi-weekly checks. And through engaging in the open and free market, many Americans will find themselves in a position where they aren't that far separated from the athlete. We'll repeal NAFTA, get out of the WTO. Tell China to screw itself and build our economy and our country back. We'll still be very active participants in the global economy and the world, but there's no reason for us to be China's lapdog while China has done nothing for us, let alone it's own citizens. 3)The Divisions of America, are over. I'm not going to force you into a collective borg hive nor do I believe in one. But rather, there are two types of people: Those who love America and those who want to take advantage of America. Those who want to add in a little spice and those who just want us to eat their cake so they don't feel weird that they're the only ones eating the said cake. All those who love America, are bound together irregardless of race, and creed and sexual orientation. This love for America, now politically open will be an awakening for an American. The former White Supremacist will see that an African-American is also pledging to the flag with the same devotion and pride that he is, and will come to understand that it's not his ethnicity that makes him an American, it's his nationality that makes him an American. There are many others however, who do not love America. What about them? It's quite simple and it goes back to what I said about productivity: If you don't love this country, if you don't feel absolute loyalty and support to this country. And that doesn't mean to the government, the government is NOT the country. YOU, yourselves as citizens are the country! If he who doesn't love this country exists in the homeland, then we kindly ask him: What country would you like to live in? We'll set up your passport and send you on your marry way. That said, I'm of the political opinion that I think that the African-American wastes a valuable opportunity in not taking what he's learned here in America and passing it unto Africa. The African-American in general(not all, and this is but a political thesis and nothing more.) would rather take the for-sure thing that is America rather than cultivate his own land. The reason I bring this up is not that I'm some supposed 'White Supremacist closet guy', but rather I'm of the observation that Africa as a whole since the days of slavery has been impoverished and taken advantage of. Because of this, African-Americans don't truly know their own native and it'd be of a cultural development for them as a whole to experience that. Geographically, I would like to see impoverished nations like Africa thrive in the 21st century and the way we can do that is to promote the domestic growth of those nations. If an African-American feels more bond to America than Africa, understandable and fine. But I'd like to see if we could organize something where an African-American can give back to Africa and connect with Africa. The ideal world, is one where second and third world countries become all first world countries. This is an ideal that can be reached based on our connections and on our intent on making it happen. I think it'll be iconic if we could start the process in Africa, as the terrible tragedies of slavery have truly cost that land dearly and they've yet to truly recover from that. One can love his country, be enthusiastic about his country and still yet see the larger picture. I want to be a Political Leader one day, not just for my country but for the free world and the development of the free world.

Pages 12

littleRED

13 years ago

LustfulAngel wrote...

The difference between your country and mine is a fairly simple yet a huge one: I live in the United States. Our gross domestic product is probably two or THREE times yours.

It's actually more than three times. I live in Serbia. Serbia has approximately 7 million citizens on an area of 34,116 sq mi. The PPP GDP of Serbia is $10,661 per capita, the nominal GDP is $6,267 per capita.

Compared to the US, that have approximately 313 million citizens on the area of 3,794,101 sq mi - the PPP GDP $48,147 per capita and the nominal GDP $48,147 per capita.

The difference in what your government spends on salaries for government employees alone is far bigger than three times. The US do have a larger budget, but they also spend more.

Elections actually cost far more than hundreds of thousands in the US. The elections 2012 will be the most expensive ever, with a total price tag of $6 billion (or even more).

Imagine SIX BILLION DOLLARS funded only by the government.

In my country the government pays the money for campaigns of parties and candidates. I'd rather have private bodies sponsoring campaigns, than my government paying for it.

LustfulAngel

13 years ago

littleRED wrote...

LustfulAngel wrote...

The difference between your country and mine is a fairly simple yet a huge one: I live in the United States. Our gross domestic product is probably two or THREE times yours.

Do you not see a problem right there alone? Six billion dollars towards a man or woman's career, that is not you yourself? How can I possibly justify a system where the people's money is ripped off for someone else?

How can we call ourselves the beacon of freedom and prosperity if our elections cost this much? Of these billions, how many of them are in tax-payer dollars, probably at least half if not more!?

This doesn't only just kill the productivity of a nation, it outright encourages theft. These politicians don't need first-class makeup/travel, etc. If they feel the need for it, they themselves will pay out of pocket expenses for it.

Tax dollars should only go to reconstruction and otherwise important government functions, but to these politicians career? That, should end in the 21st century.

littleRED

13 years ago

LustfulAngel wrote...

And what would you do about it? Let's say that the government provides everything. So the government allows you to have a certain number of staff members, that have a government regulated salary (if any salary at all). The government sponsors vehicles for campaigns and gives you regulations on how much the candidate is allowed to use it, i.e. how many miles you can drive with it. The government provides the candidates with a filming studio for commercials and tells you how many commercials the candidate is allowed to make (the less, the better because less cost) and either forms a government regulated TV and radio station, where those commercial won't cost money to show or forces private radio and TV stations to show them for free in a certain time slot (because certain time slots on big TV stations cost a lot, like in A LOT).

No, seriously, how would you regulate that?

On the other hand: Do voters really need campaigns to get to know the candidates? Isn't some sort of printed release enough, where we could find their intentions and program and then opinions from various experts about them (including testimonials from independent psychologists on their mental state and capability)?

Post Reply

Pages 12