This might qualify as a personal journal entry.
I feel pretty alone as I write it.  There was a little piece of news which came by last week that had great significance to me, but which slipped under the radar of most political punditis.

Bernie Sanders, the “favorite” in the horse race for the open U.S. Senate seat in Vermont, filed as a candidate in the primary election … as a DEMOCRAT.  What does this mean?

Well, Bernie might be the best person to tell us all the ramifications but one ramification is very clear to me as an independent challenger for the seat:

  WE ARE LOSING OUR INDEPENDENTS IN CONGRESS!

Bernie can no longer claim to be an Independent.
He has taken a side.  I think it was the the correct action for him. It was something I challenged him to do in my ‘Open Letter to Bernie Sanders’  where I said:

4. Why do you vote with the Democrats and accept the endorsement of prominent Democrats but refuse to run as a Democrat?

Reference: http://metamind.us/m…

Bernie Sanders is currently the only independent in the House of Representatives.  James Jeffords is the only independent in the U.S. Senate.  Jeffords has already announced his retirement.
Sanders has announced his partisanship and the end of his independent status.

The way I see it BOTH of our independent politicians are “giving up” on independence.
They have joined the party game.

As an independent it is for me to do … to support independence from parties.  What does it mean to be an “independent” politician?

It means I am “outside the box” of the gang warfare. Parties are like gangs, each gange “certainly correct” that its ideology is the correct one. But it is all foolishness.  Both gangs believe in control, in dominance, in the idea that “politics is about who’s in charge?”

To me, this is all rubbish.  Nobody is in control.  Everyone has influence on the course of events and the destiny of humankind.  But nobody controls it.

The Republicans may espouse “free market idology” but they are as much the victims of money and its machinations as they are the controllers of it.
It seems to me that we want “something to believe in” because we are too insecure and cowardly to “stand alone in the winds of change.”

But courage is a virtue and parties diminish our courage.  It takes more courage to stand alone than to join a gang which is “certainly correct” in its ideological views.

What is correct?  It is “doing the right thing.”
It is virtue.  But virtue should be looked at as a toolbox of creative spirituality rather than a set of rules to be followed with religious conviction.  Virtue is not religion; it is philosophy.  It evolves as we evolve.  Virtues can be combined in many creative ways.  Virtue liberates us from ideology rather than confining us to it.  Virtue is the antithesis of ideology.

Once someone is “certainly correct” they can do great evil.  Look at what is happening today between Israel and Hezbollah.  Israel is  certainly correct, right?  So is Hezbollah.  How can this be?  Because neither side is practicing virtue any more.  None of them are correct.  They are all wrong.

One literal translation of “Israel” is “Upright with God” according to Wikipedia
( http://en.wikipedia…. )
The word “Hezbollah” means “Party of God.”

So who is correct?  It is difficult for me to call Israel “Upright with God” when their actions seem so out of balance with fairness, compassion, mercy  and justice.  If Hezbollah is a party, I fail to see what’s fun about it.  Dying for one’s beliefs is one of the most insane actions possible in my humble opinion.  They are only beliefs.  Change them.  Then change them back. Then change them again.  Good grief!  I think many of us are taking ourselves far too seriously.

What was your belief in God when you were a child?
Did you believe God was an old man with a big grey beard who lived in the sky?  What was your belief in God last year, five years ago, ten years ago and so forth?  Has your belief changed over the years?  Tell the truth.  Tell the HONEST truth.
Are you making it up as you go along?  Were you
correct when you believed these things before?  Are you now correct?  Are you sure?

This is the “nut” of the issue. 
Surely, we are certainly correct.
It’s too insecure for us to think otherwise.  What kind of politics can an “independent politician” have nowadays?  Uncertain politics, right?  Wrong.  I can have convictions as an independent politician and I do have convictions. 

One of my convictions is: “I MAY be wrong.”  That’s acknowledging my own ignorance, my own capacity for an incorrect, inferior, incomplete understanding of the issue.  That’s humility.  That’s wisdom. That is a virtue.  Ironically, it’s also a “more correct” position on political convictions.

I’m convinced that virtue is a good thing, but I’m uncertain about which virtue is most important at any given point in time.  Is it more important to pursue PEACE or JUSTICE?  Is it more important to be TRUTHFUL or REVERENT?  Is it more important to be PATIENT or ASSERTIVE?

Someone recently asked me “So what’s the best solution?”  I told him “Always ask the question: What would be better?”

That’s life in the “independent lane.”  I don’t  have a firm position on embryonic stem cell  research.  My position on the violence in the Middle East is “It’s all wrong.”  Focus on virtue and you will find better answers.  I am certainly correct.

Steve Moyer
Warren, VT
http://stevemoyer.us

Rights are asserted with reason.  The statement “health care must be a right” is a contortion of the word and its true meaning.
Rights come from a reasoned understanding of our relationship with nature and each other.  No man has the right to own another.
This was true long before the emancipation proclamation.  It has to do with  “right relations” between people and the necessity
of free will to have the liberty to express itself.  If free will is to be honored then all men must be free to exercise it.  Therefore,
slavery is wrong.  This is how rights are realized.

If you assert that health care MUST be a right then you are diminishing the reasoned assertion that it IS a right.

Health care IS a fundamental human right.

The questions concerning health care are:

1. HOW are we to provide health care for each other
2. WHO is going to bear the burden of the cost
3. HOW MUCH health care is the right amount?

Beyond these three basic questions is the implied question of HOW WILL WE DECIDE?

Yes, we are in a health care crisis.  But much more important is the economic crisis.  Money has failed us.  The focus
of health care has been on the profits for the health care INDUSTRY rather than the health of the people.  Money is a
failed system. It is on artificial life support.  We are living on “debt money” and selling our jobs, our property and our viture
to win “another day for money.”  We are working for money rather than money working for us.  The servant is now master.

Please address the root philosophical problems with the “money paradigm.”  We have everything yet we are acting as if
we can’t afford that which we need.  Why?  The money system serves to enslave us to itself rather than free us from it.
Whether we seek government subsidies and programs or whether we seek money though private sector activities, we are
still chasing  after money.  If money was truly a good thing it would be liberating us from the need for more government and
more money.  Instead, the knot of tyranny grows tigher every year.  Our bondage to money is nearly complete.  Our dependence
on government grows daily. Money and government work together to become the “tyranny of our lives.”

We need to work for freedom FROM money AND government rather than dependence ON money THROUGH government.
We need less government rather than more government.  Money needs competition.  People need choice.

I recognize the necessity for a Universal Health Care System administered through government. Why?  Because
we worked our way into a box where we are incapable of imagining how health care could be delivered in any other way.
But part of the plan needs to be oriented towards REDUCING the cost of health care and INCREASING the health of
the population, without more requirements for money or government control.

How is this possible?  I’ll be laying out my health care plan shortly with specific measures we can take to reduce
the cost of health care and increase the health of the people.  Many of these initiatives are already being taken in
small ways.  They need to be “amped up” so they can be more effective.

Put simply, my plan does MORE with LESS.  Creativity is a virtue.  Truthfulness is a virtue.  Service is a virtue.
When we tell the truth in service to a higher purpose we can create better solutions.

I welcome the opportunity to join in this discussion.

Steve Moyer
Independent Candidate for U.S. Senate
http://stevemoyer.us

P.S.  Remember the 14th amendment:  EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.  Everyone deserves
the SAME health benefits regardless of age, class or other divisions.

On 7/18/06, Sanders for Senate wrote:

  Bernie Believes Health Care is a Right

  Bernie Sanders believes health care must be a right of all citizens, not a privilege.  He also believes we are in the middle of a health care crisis and need action now to help everyone gain access to affordable health care.  We currently have a health care non-system that allows the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry to enjoy huge profits while 46 million Americans are uninsured, millions more are under-insured and the cost of health insurance is soaring.  The money spent on health care is staggering.  The U.S. spends twice to three times as much as other developed nations on health care, with too much money wasted on administration costs.

  Fortunately, there’s hope—Bernie has always fought a health care system that would provide affordable coverage for everyone.  He believes we must join every other industrialized country by guaranteeing health care to all our citizens, and we must stop paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.  Bernie has always supported a single-payer health care plan administered by the states, which would allow innovation and the creation of different systems for different needs.  This is a universal health insurance program, not government-run, state administered health care.  The actual care would be delivered through some of the same providers but would be publicly funded.  Patients would be free to choose their doctors or hospitals.  For example, Vermont has the very successful Dr. Dynasaur program that provides health care insurance for children, teenagers, and pregnant women.  Bernie would like to see this program expanded. 

  Bernie’s Strong Record of Achievement on Health Care

  Bernie has accomplished many things to expand access and lower the cost of health care.  Here are some highlights: 

  He expanded health and dental care access for thousands of Vermonters through the establishment of 3 new Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). 

  He helped thousands of Vermont veterans receive the VA benefits to which they are entitled, and has brought millions into the state for VA health care. 

  He was the first member of Congress to take constituents across the Canadian border for low-cost prescription drugs. Today millions of Americans are buying their medicines abroad and six states have developed drug re-importation programs. 

  Recently, Bernie helped the Health Center in Plainfield health center achieve a new designation that will cover some of its costs in providing medical care on a sliding scale to all of its 7,800 patients.  You can read about it in the Burlington Free Press here.

  ———————————————————————–

—
Think virtue.  Teach virtue.  Live virtue

Lightheartedness Assertiveness Faithfulness Kindness Respect Caring Flexibility Love Responsibility Cleanliness Forgiveness Reverence Compassion Friendliness Mercy Self-discipline Confidence Generosity Moderation Service Consideration Gentleness Modesty Steadfastness Courage Helpfulness Obedience Tact Courtesy Honesty Orderliness Thankfulness Creativity Honor Patience Tolerance Detachment Humility Peacefulness Trust Determination Idealism Prayerfulness Trustworthiness Enthusiasm Joyfulness Purposefulness Truthfulness Excellence Justice Reliability Unity.

“Seek the truth.
Speak the Truth
Support the Truth”

Steve Moyer
Candidate for U.S. Senate

Web site: http://stevemoyer.us 
Blog: http://stevemoyer.us/blog
Vermont Democracy Network: http://vermont.stevemoyer.us

RR1 Box 60,  Warren, VT 05674
802-583-2163  202-370-6653

Here is an article which arrived in my email this morning.

I copied the chart he refers to and posted it at

http://stevemoyer.us/images/debtchart.jpg

As the author of this piece notes, the presumption
is that interest rates will remain where they are, at a historically low level.  If they rebound to higher levels the chart gets much worse much faster.

Basically, there is a structural deficit which leads to government bankrupcy or, in simple terms, economic collapse.

There are things we could do to avoid this fiasco.
For example, we could import a lot of people from other countries ( immigrants ) who would further expand our economy.  But the direction of the econmy is destined towards disaster unless there is a rapid expansion of it to increase the GDP and therefore the tax base. 

This curve also means that things like universal health care are being taken off of the table by the Republicans.  There simply isn’t the money for  it in the current system.

Please read the article which follows and add your own thoughts.  I’d like to know how you view this.

Steve

Government Debt: Termites in the House
By Bud Conrad

Recently I had the pleasure of having lunch with the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker. He heads up the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the government’s internal watchdog. As he was about to give a talk on out-of-control government deficits, he had in his briefcase a chart on the size of the government’s obligations over time. Our discussion about those obligations over lunch was followed by an email exchange, and Walker kindly helped me source additional GAO data, all of which allowed me to confirm my analysis of the budget with projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

I have also met with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of CBO, who can competently recite the situation of six different budget projections without notes. The combined scenarios of the GAO and CBO provided me with the basis to create the following projection of the U.S. budget:

A clear picture emerges of a government completely out of control. The blue line is the history of the U.S. Federal Government debt. The green line shows the path we are now on, with debt soaring to impossible levels against projected GDP. Importantly, the source isn’t some crazy hand-waving blogger: these are the government’s own projections–and we all know they have every incentive to accent the positive. If this is the best they can do at this point, then you know things are not just bad, they are calamitous.

This glimpse at the future clearly shows that the debt of the U.S. will, in the foreseeable future, go from being a troubling yet manageable fraction of the economy to being several times the size of economy. That can’t happen without serious repercussions.

The government will be spending money they don’t have, which means creating more of it out of thin air and diluting the value of all the dollars that came before. It doesn’t take a Harvard MBA to know that the kind of deficits projected above guarantee a persistently weak dollar, higher inflation and higher interest rates going forward.

You may be right to criticize this analysis as only one of many scenarios being developed all the time and that there are other assumptions that lead to other estimates, and you would be right.

But I’ve looked at the assumptions, as has David Walker, and it is more likely that the assumptions have underestimated how serious the situation could become, maybe by a significant margin. For example, in the projections above, the interest rate paid by the government stays flat. Interest rates fell for 23 years and have only just recently bounced off of 45-year lows. The odds of interest rates staying at these low levels for decades into the future are, in my opinion, nil. I have analyzed the scenario of the impact of higher interest rates. The problem can get out of hand because it feeds on itself: higher interest rates lead to higher interest on debt, which leads to higher debt, which leads to greater loss in confidence in the dollar, which leads to higher interest rates… and the loop makes itself worse.

The Blame

Who is responsible for this sin of profligate spending? You could start by pointing a finger at the House of Representatives as they are constitutionally charged with holding the purse strings of the U.S. government. They voted for the spending and programs we are now saddled with, they pass tax programs, and vote in the big supplemental bills that fund the wars.

Entrusted with allocating the biggest sums of funding in the world, they clamor for more and, in the process, act like termites chewing away at the fiscal underpinnings of the economy, assuring the future bankruptcy of the nation. And it is not just the modern politicos that are responsible, but a failure to pursue sound monetary policies that extends back decades. Why do they do it? That answer is easy and reflective of human nature… they do it to curry favor with their constituents in order to get reelected.

Which further points the finger at us, the American public, who instead of voting the bums out for wasting our money and handing a legacy of debt to our grandchildren’s grandchildren, happily pocket the pork belly doled out and reward the most prolific spenders with our votes.

The bottom line is that debt and deficits are baked into the cake, exacerbated by the demographics of retiring baby boomers and a government that not only shows no intention of slowing its spending, but quite the opposite. In fact, like a penniless smoker breaking a child’s piggy bank to buy a pack, the debt-addicted government has already spent the supposed “Trust Funds” of Social Security and Medicare.

The government is closer to bankruptcy than anyone who has not studied the situation can guess. You will hear government apologists claim that the government can’t go bankrupt because they are the government, and along with a complicit Federal Reserve, they can meet any debt obligation because they have the printing press. That is precisely the problem. They can print any amount of money they want. That has been theoretically possible since we went off the gold standard in 1971.

It is this loss of any constraint on government spending that has let the genie out of the bottle. The track is now laid. The long-term future of the dollar is not in question. And to the extent that it is the basis of all other currencies, the reserve currency of the world’s central banks, all currencies are doomed.

Gold and the quality companies that produce or competently explore for it (our focus in the International Speculator) should no longer be viewed as entertaining speculations, but as portfolio requisites.

Reference: http://www.caseyresearch.com

Take a look at the latest poll at:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

This is the poll to watch.  Are the Democrats going to take back the House of Reps?  If not, then we are on a Republican course.  It’s much less likely that they can take back the Senate.

I’ve sent out the following email far and wide:

———————–  email message  ———

What’s good about Republicans?

From: nodesnetwork@gmail.com
Date: Jul 12, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: What’s good about Republicans?

I want to be fair to Republicans. I’ve been harshly critical of them for over a year now. What’s good about Republicans? I want to know so I can share a balanced view with the people this election season. Let’s paint a “fair and balanced” picture so that we can make a correct judgment in November.

What do you think? Search your mind for answers. There is good and evil in all of us, right?

What’s good about Republicans? Send me your answers and I’ll compile them with those from others and send them back to you. You can go back in history if you wish, but I’m particularly interested in what’s good about Republicans today.

Thank you for your participation in this research endeavor.

Sincerely,

Steve Moyer
Candidate for U.S. Senate
http://stevemoyer.us

Here is the Letter he sent to the Free Press.  I agree with him on many things, especially the need to open up the media to independent candidates like Keith and myself.  — Steve Moyer  http://stevemoyer.us

here is a letter to the burlington “free” press in response to their editorial today

Why is the Burlington “Free” Press afraid of an Independent candidate for the US House seat?  Is it because you have hitched your cart to a candidate and are afraid that there is a candidate that the people will be more enthused about?  Or maybe you don’t think a candidate talking about income tax reform where the first $75,000 in income is exempt from taxes is something your readers are interested in.  How about a plan for protecting Social Security?  Nothing your readers are concerned with, right?  My plan for world peace through a treaty of nonaggression and basic human rights can’t be of any importance to your readers, can it?  How about a true discussion of decreasing the use of fossil fuels?

I am absolutely amazed that any legitimate media provider would intentionally keep a legitimate candidate out of the election process.  Maybe because I don’t have a lot of money to spend advertising with you?  I hope you print this so your readers can see that this paper doesn’t believe they have the right to complete election coverage, instead censoring the information to what the paper wants them to know.

Keith Stern
Independent candidate for the US House
http://www.getstern.org
 

What is humanity’s purpose?  It seems to me that we have accepted the purpose of “control over resources.”  This is most commonly known as “capitalism” but it could also include communism and fascism.  In all of these systems the purpose is to control the resources of society, albeit by different means.

Suppose that we were to seek a better purpose for humanity.  What would it be?  Homeostasis, perhaps. Our purpose might be to build a stable relationship between nature and humanity.  This is often referred to as “sustainability” meaning that a homeostasis (stable state) between nature and humanity could be maintained over time.

Our current predicament is that we are “inside the box” of capital control.  We are trying to control the resources of society ( “capital” ).  That produces war by its nature.  In truth, the very idea that we should pursue control is the dominant paradigm.  The dominant paradigm is dominance.  Seeking to control resources, which includes other people, produces dominant behavior patterns, such as war, political fights and societal divisions.

What do politicians mean when they say “I’ll fight for you?”  Who or what are they fighting?  They are fighting for control of resources, usually money.  Money is a fluid form of capital. It can easily be “controlled” by government. 

From a higher perspective we are all being controlled by money because we lack a better purpose.  We are “victims of money.” If our purpose was to build a “sustainable world” we might still have money but it would be in service to the higher purpose. Without a higher purpose we are left to “fight over money” which produces a parade of negative behavior patterns.

We need to “get out of the box” of fighting over resources ( money ) and start building a better purpose.  We can start by thinking about how we are going to produce a world where everyone gets what they need, without having to compete or conflict with each other.

We might begin by doing a global inventory of resources and needs.  What do we have?  What do we need to do to accomplish sustainability?  This forms the foundation of a new economic system and a new political system.

It’s what’s for dinner!

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

I write software for use on the Internet.  This morning I was debugging a new program which sends email that contains forms.  Forms are those things, like this blog story submission, which let you enter text and make selections from menus and click buttons.  Well, the issue I ran into was one of security for forms sent through email.

While my form worked fine for me, it din’t work for my friend in Pennsylvania.  Apparently he had a security program, possible Norton Security, which was preventing him from submitting a form from within an email.

This is a security issue.  But at another level of analysis it is a trust issue.  Because he knew the message came from me and that he could trust me.  But it didn’t matter.  ALL email form submissions were prevented by his security program.  It’s the way we think about things in general that’s the problem.  NEVER trutst ANYONE!  That’s how you sell a security program.  We have a fear-based economic system when you think about it.  There is more money to be made in getting people to “live in fear” than to get them to “trust each other.”

Society requires trust.  Money requires dis-trust.
We’re going in two different directions.  Some of us want to create a better community, a more virtuous society ( trust is a virtue ), and others want to make money.

We are literally tearing ourselves apart for the sake of profit.  We are preventing any system for discerning WHO we can trust and rewarding them appropriately.  We are focused on DIS-trusting everyone and embracing security as our saviour.

Does this sound like the War on Terror to anyone but me?  The War on Terror is a great way of making money.  It’s a horribly bad way to make a functional society.

All wars are on people.  You can’t have a war on a tactic.  So we are warring with each other to gain the “economic advantage” in the capitalistic system.  That’s pretty much where this line of thought takes me.

What do you think?

Steve

This is A REPLY to a diary entry at:
http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/userDiary.do?personId=327
regarding subsidies for the Vermont dairy industry.

Yes, this is a “case in point” about how the current political economy fails to serve us in an intelligent and rational manner.  The so-called “market” serves to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the few BY ITS NATURE.  Government intervention serves to create dependence on government. In either case, the small producer become the victim of a larger and more powerful entity … either big agribusiness or government.

So what’s the solution?  First things first.  This is a systemic problem with the way we have constructed our society.  It goes to the root of the issue over what is “valued” in terms of economics.  We value capital, to put it simply, and therefore we are constantly addressing  problems from a perspective of capital. 

Suppose, for example, that our political economy was structured to value something else like  “sustainability at the community level.”  How would that work? 

Everything would need to be re-structured, including government, so that the contributions an individual or business made very evaluated in terms of how much “sustainability at the community level” the contributions produced.  How would this be done?  Since this system is divorced from the notion of capital ( money ) it would need to be done on another standard, such as “community coherence.”

In other words, does a specific contribution, such as milk production, increase “community coherence” in a way which produces “community sustainability.”  Does the contribution lead to a higher quality of life and a more satisfied population and, if so, by how much?

Let’s imagine that we were constructing a system on the Internet where people could express their approval for any contribution by any individual or business in terms of credits. 

Where do the credits come from?  Government.  How are they created?  By consensus, or the best agreement the people can reach, on how many should be created and how they should be distributed to the population. It’s “economic democracy” in the truest sense.  “We the people” accept responsibility for our economy.

What criteria are used to make these decisions?
Whatever criteria have been agreed upon by the people with the highest degree of consent.  If you smell a mathematical formula coming here then you are following me. 🙂

So let’s just say that this “credit creation and distribution system”  allocates everyone with some amount of credits.  You can “spend” your credits by voting for activities which you support via the Internet.

For example, if you want milk you would “spend” your credits by “voting” ( giving credits) for the milk industry and all those businesses which produce milk for the community. 

How many credits you spend on milk could vary from month to month.  Obviously, the milk industry can’t increase or decrease it’s production in a whimsical fashion.
Reason tells us that in order to maintain a stable contribution of milk there must be some “backup plan” in the event that too few people support the milk industry with their credits. 

Here’s where conservativism comes into the picture, as a representation of respect for traditional values.  What has worked in the past?  How much milk was needed to produce community coherence and a sustainable community?  That’s what would be “recommended” by a program which tells the people which industries and activities are “underfunded” and require  more credits.  If the people still don’t respond by allocating credits to these industries, the government could issue more credits directly to the milk industry producers.

If the people indicate, over a period of time, that they want LESS milk production, then the “credit subsidy” for that industry will gradually be reduced.  Again, conservatism is the rule of the program.  ( slow change )
But economic democracy is the rule of the rule. Eventually,
the “will of the people” will prevail but the “conservative rule” will prevent change from happening in a whimsical or
erratic manner.  It’s a kind of ballast on the ship of State.

Now if all of this is sounding a bit like “government by a computer program” then you are getting the idea.  But the software is more than merely a mechanical codification of existing prejudices.  It’s constantly working to write a better algorithm for producing “community coherence” in service of “community sustainability.”  It requires the people to give feedback on how “satisfied” they are with the results in every area of society.  The objective is to attain and maintain the highest possible degree of “community coherence.”  In other words, UNITY!

Sounds like a lot of work, right?  Well, the good part of the plan is that it doesn’t have to work 100 percent perfectly for everything as soon as it is introduced.  It can start small, such as in a particular industry or with a certain percentage of government spending.  Let’s say that 10 percent of the Vermont State Government budget was to be allocated in such a way, via “community credits,”  and that these credits would be honored as “equivalent to money” when dealing with the state government … paying taxes, traffic fines, renewing car registration, campground fees … so that the public would have confidence that the credits were actually “worth something.” 

So farmers could accumulate credits from people who had either received them for simply being residents of Vermont or for doing some work for the State or some non-profit agency funded by the State.  The farmers, in turn, could barter the credits for things they needed or use them to pay their taxes or other state fees.  Individuals or businesses might purchase milk from farmers using credits. Everyone would know that the credits were “worth something” because the State would always honor them.  It would be “another kind of money.”  But the credits would not need to be borrowed in order to be created and the State would not need to “cash them out” with money for as long as they were circulating in the community.  Essentially, this could result in a more sustainable community-based economy with
less dependence on government AND money.

The beauty of this plan is that it could be implemented at a small level, to help subsidize the dairy industry for example, while simultaneously reducing the need for hard currency to subsidize a failing industry.  Dairy farmers might find that the credits would make their life easier but the amount of credits might be regulated to assure that there was an appropriate level of milk production.  The whole process could be governed by the people in consort with the government using the Internet to reach consensus.

Now all of this might take some time to implement.  It might fail the first time, and maybe the second time too, before eventually producing the desired results.  These results would be to increase “community coherence” towards “community sustainability” without dependence on either government or money ( market forces ).  The idea is to free us from the “tyranny of money” and the “tyranny of government.”

In other words, we need to change the way we think about economics and politics.  As I’ve said many times on my
web site:

“It’s all us.  We are the problem.  We are the solution.”

The revolution is in your mind.

Blessings,

Steve Moyer
Candidate for U.S. Senate
http://stevemoyer.us

It’s creeping fascism and it’s quite creepy. I woke up this morning and turned on C-SPAN to watch Washington Journal. What do I see on the “spellcasting machine?” Senator Orin Hatch is exhorting the virtue of using the Constitution as notepaper to send the Supreme Court a message: “Don’t limit the power of Congress.”

The burning issue of the day in Hatch’s mind is flag desecration. He wants Congress to have the power to turn the flag into a national sacrament, something we will all treat with the greatest of reverence. He thinks it is a big issue that the Supreme Court said … years ago … that flag-burning was an exercise of free speech protected by the Constitution. So he and his Republican co-conspirators want to turn the flag into a national religious sacrament to signify that we have now become a secular state with a religious symbol which is sacrosanct. The next step will be treating the Government like God.

It reminds me of the story a few months ago of the cartoons from Denmark which led some Muslims to violent and destructive protests over the defamation of the image of Muhammed these cartoons allegedly portrayed.

So we are trying to compete with Islam for fundamentalist idiocy, for pandering to moronic reasoning and unquestioned support for our government. There’s a word in the dictionary for this kind of thing: FASCISM.

Excuse me, is it OK to shred the Constitution in order to protect the flag? I’m uncertain. Is the Constitution protected against defamation as well or is it only the flag?

One man called into the CSPAN show and pointed out that most of our flags are made in China nowadays. I suppose that’s OK, even if they were made by slave labor and paid for with borrowed money. It’s the symbol which matters most, not the people or the processes associated with it.

The Republicans made a big deal about these seven Miami “terror suspects” who where apprehended last week. But their ambition was more “aspirational” than “operational” according to the government. In other words, they wanted to do something but didn’t have the means or the plan to actually accomplish it.

They were poor people living in a warehouse who felt some compulsion to DO something about the state of affairs. Is it any wonder they picked a violent course when given the chance by an FBI undercover agent? Our government is constantly instigating violence with our foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they are doing it at home as well.

Excuse me for my irreverent attitude towards our government. We should all worship our government, right? It can do nothing wrong. Afterall, it’s a Republican-dominated government and everyone knows that Republicans have the best interests of all Americans in their hearts, right?

Wrong. They have the interests of power in their hearts. Their hearts are blackened with greed and powerlust, of service to the rich and the super-rich, and for the desire to control everyone and every thing in the world. The Republicans have lost their virtue. This November we should all do something good for our nation and “REJECT REPUBLICANS” at every level of government. They are trying to set up a fascist state with a “unitary executive” (dictator) who we can worship for as long as he lives. Please, people. Stop this insantity! Resist the temptation to seek certain security in a party or a person. It’s the wrong road.

Enough already! Show some reverence for the Constitution rather than the flag. Stand up to the fascist Republicans and “just say no” to amending the Constitution for wrongful purposes. The Constitution should be used to expand and protect our liberty rather than to restrict and assault it.

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

—
Think virtue.  Teach virtue.  Live virtue

Lightheartedness Assertiveness Faithfulness Kindness Respect Caring Flexibility Love Responsibility Cleanliness Forgiveness Reverence Compassion Friendliness Mercy Self-discipline Confidence Generosity Moderation Service Consideration Gentleness Modesty Steadfastness Courage Helpfulness Obedience Tact Courtesy Honesty Orderliness Thankfulness Creativity Honor Patience Tolerance Detachment Humility Peacefulness Trust Determination Idealism Prayerfulness Trustworthiness Enthusiasm Joyfulness Purposefulness Truthfulness Excellence Justice Reliability Unity.

“Seek the truth.
Speak the Truth
Support the Truth”

Steve Moyer
Candidate for U.S. Senate

Web site: http://stevemoyer.us 
Blog: http://stevemoyer.us/blog
RR1 Box 60,  Warren, VT 05674

802-882-1949

References:

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_rankism.htm
http://tinyurl.com/qrb4d
http://c-span.org

This morning on Washington Journal there was an interesting segment with the author of “Somebodies and Nobodies : Overcoming the Abuse of Rank” a book by Robert Fuller. ( see tinyurl )

Fuller believes there is an insidious force in America that has heretofore gone unrecognized. This “disorder without a name,” which he terms “rankism,” is discrimination beyond race, gender or educational background.  He gives it a name: rankism.

Fuller describes the various forms of rankism: scientists taking credit for the work of assistants, nursing home staff treating elderly patients poorly, priests sexually abusing churchgoers, etc. Rankism is an assault on personal dignity and should not be tolerated, says Fuller.

This struck me as an endeavor in “virtue politics” even though the author stays away from a discussion of virtue.  He’s talking about “power as control” but stays away from talking about “domination politics.”  He’s talking about “unfair advantage” but stays away from talking about fairness.

It’s really simple to understand from my point of view.  We’ve lost our virtue in pursuit of unfair advantage.  This pervasive quest for unfair advantage is rooted in our economic system, which from the beginning was the most powerful principle of our political system.

There is a provision in the Constitution which says that slaves shall be considered “three-fifths of a person” for purposes of allocating seats in the House of Representatives.  But slaves never had ANY political power.  So what this meant is that if a slaveowner increased his stock of slaves that he received an increase in political power.  That means “money buys power” which is still the operative meme of our society.  Take a look at our elections.

Money is an inherently unfair method of distributing power in society.  It favors the rich.  It’s easier to make money when you have money.  We rarely talk about how the rich can sit back in liesure and have their wealth increase without doing “one stich of work.”  Money is unfair by it’s nature.

We’ve built a society on money ( capital ) and
capital is inherently unfair and produces indignity by its nature.  The lesson of money is that it is “OK” to seen unfair advantage over others.  Indeed, that’s the way most people “succeed” in this capitalist political economy.

So while we might all rally behind Mr. Fuller’s
quest for a society based on human dignity, we are rolling a rock uphill within this economic paradigm.

How about rewarding people based on the helpfulness of their contributions to society?
That would be a different paradigm and produce a more dignified society.  But, of course, if you were a rich person living off of your “investments” you wouldn’t get much dignity because you wouldn’t be doing anything that was
helpful to others.

Oh, excuse me, you would be “managing your investments” for the benefit of humanity.  Or would you be managing them for your own unfair advantage?  How would we ever know the difference?

It’s a argument.  Sounds pretty Republican to me.

Upon relfection, I think Mr. Fuller’s book is a diversion from the truth rather than an explication of it.  Honor is a virtue.  Mr. Fuller fails to honor the truth by telling the BIG  truth … money produces oppression which is undignified by its nature.

Teach Virtue!  It’s the better way.

Steve Moyer