Are eroding values compromising our freedom AND our economy?

EXACTLY!!!! We need to have common values that compel us to support one another in order to maintain the collective unity needed to effectively direct and monitor our government. Our unity is the strength of the nation standing behind us that defines and increases our value as individuals. How our country stands up for us as individuals depends on whether all of us can accept our own responsibilities to support both the individual and our country. This should be an agreement AND a pledge of reciprocity.

 

Nowadays people care very little about the common good, we have all been turned in self absorbed egotistic individuals. A typical symptom of decadence is when people become greedy and egocentric.

 

In a world of rampant hostility, greed, and corruption, virtuosity could easily be considered vulnerability. But, as is often said, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” We all reap the benefits of living in a society where we are provided companionship, protection, medical care, and resources which allow us to live the kind of life that we could never live alone. We are dependent on each other in so many ways that we could not even imagine, yet we live our lives with invisible walls built up around us. We are encouraged by the example of what appears to be a self-serving majority to get everything that is due to us and more, and not to give more than is necessary. We may feel guilty seeing the plight of the disadvantaged or oppressed, but we excuse our lack of response by rationalizing that there is so much need in the world that nothing we could possibly do would make any appreciable difference. Besides, if anyone suspects that we want to help them, they would in all probability take advantage of us. Self-preservation has become paranoid in nature.

Henrik Ibsen, the Norwegian author, once said: "The strongest man in the world is he who stands alone." In context, a person who stands up against a crowd to defend his or her moral convictions defintely has stronger character, but in real life is not likely to prevail. On the other hand, who can prevail against 300 million strongly determined to work for the common good?

The reality is, if our ship sinks, we all risk drowning. A common defense is definitely advantageous in helping to ensure self-preservation.

 

I'm not so sure that is the case. However, there is no REAL public place where the common good is the topic.

What supplants that needed activity is something else, which is actually the good of a number of special interests misrepresented as "common".

The idea of "Preparatory Amendment" for Article V is that the PURPOSE of free speech, which is to discuss the "common good" be restored, or the right to see that purpose manifested is restored.

The "self absorbed egotistic individuals" is basically something that the powerful elite have communicated to us over generations as a preferable and dominate psychology for people.

The term, "Ego" is not quite properly based in our language as far as its application in our mental performance. The resin for it is that its dominate counterpart the "Id" has been downplayed to a degree that tries to dispense with it.

Such is the reason the dictionaries do not define the word "idiot" properly with its root in the word "Id". An idot literally is an Id which is robotic under its own or anthers mandates. That, is heretical and the church which promoted the written word forbids that the Id exist with any practicality.

This is the reason that psychology is so ineffective. Psychology is licensed by the state, which depends on academia for competency, and academia is controlled by the church in basic ways such as the tendency to reject anything that would have been considered heresy.

 

Well stated!

The challenged, should we choose to accept it, is to assemble 300 million people behind obvious natural law which states that we have the power to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights.

The material challenge is that media is not going to help us, meaning those with the strength, must go above and beyond the average call of duty and share to obvious natural law, and the fact that there is the law of the land that can be used to make the natural law dominate. Article V.

That material challenge, wisely, with full credit to the framers, is lessened by the fact that the people of the states really only have to control their states. The same inquiry I ask here, (and everywhere), is rightfully applied to state legislators.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Of course, if they do not agree and accept, they cannot rightfully represent us at Article V, because only the people can define constitutional intent, so are unfit for office. Within a constitutional emergency, such officials are properly impeached by their peers immediately.

Therein is how the states develop the ability to assure that all amendments have constitutional intent at an Article V convention. In this case, it will be connections in 3/4 of the states because congress is unconstitutional and refuses to call a convention, and has so for 100 years, despite 2/3 of the states applying for one. Here is a lawsuit filed against Boehner and McConnell for their unlawful performance relating to Article V.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/doc4.pdf

 

Yes. We used to have a small elite of self absorbed, amoral individuals, now we have millions of such people. Welcome to hell...

 

I'm sorry that I didn't answer your previous query, but you asked for individualized answers to a variety of questions. I am relatively new to this forum, and computer skills is not really my forte, so I have not been able to figure out how to format my answers in the same itemized manner that you presented your questions. I would be obliged to you if you could give me brief, SIMPLE instructions on how to do so. (This old dog would like to learn a new trick.)

Our Constitution is not meant to give hard and fast rules to evaluate every situation, but to be basic enough to provide our nation with the latitude it will always need to allow it to evolve. In its original text, it focused almost exclusively on the structure and authority of the government. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments were written to enumerate rights of citizens and broaden the scope of powers and limitations of the government. However, the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that just because amendments are written to protect the rights of citizens, this does not imply that unnamed rights do not exist. These amendments were meant to exemplify the values our founding fathers endorsed for our nation as basic guidelines in order to instill a spirit within us to understand what is right or wrong and make decisions accordingly, not to strictly define freedom. In fact, many argued against the Bill of Rights, fearing that they may be misconstrued or cause confusion, thereby complicating the legal process. Our English language lends ambiguity to almost anything that it is written or spoken, since most words in the dictionary have multiple meanings, and even elaborate clarification does not eliminate the possibility of multiple implications for the same expressed thought.

I agree that the media coverage is mostly unilateral propaganda, but I take issue with your proposal to "alter or abolish" (which I assume would apply only to the First Amendment) as it would infringe upon the freedom of the media. Taking away from their freedom will NOT eventually enhance our own. Your solution is to ameliorate the situation by force of law, but our legal system has left us confused regarding the interpretation of the boundaries of individual freedom, and laws are better off left alone until the American people are blessed with the wisdom to properly interpret them. Attorneys are what put us in this situation in the first place.

Anyway, if you had the support needed to push through this proposal, it would no longer be needed.

 

I agree. Respecting the borders of other people's bodies and their property would seem a prerequisite to a civilized society. Unfortunately there are many who want to use government force to violate the bodies and property of their fellow man to achieve their own ends. To them, violence is the answer to every question.

 

In MOST cases, it is individual values at fault rather than administrative directives. Unfortunately, there are many who seek law enforcement positions in order to vent their aggressive tendencies. If you are suggesting that special-interest groups seek to promote violence to enforce their own agendas, that is SCARY!!

 

I'm not suggesting that at all. Not sure what made you think that was my position.

 

I perceived two possible interpretations of your statement, and I addressed them both. So, might I assume that you are referring to the charges of physical abuse made against law enforcement officers?

 

No, I'm not referring to the charges of physical abuse made against law enforcement officers.

 

Just by preceding the questions with tags (brackets are backwards here) ]quote[ at the beginning and ]/quote[ at the end, the formatting to isolate the questions is accomplished. Of course the forum software has the same function just by selecting the text and clicking the symbol of the text change you want.

Which is precisely what I've done with those questions. They surround a basic deficiency in the constitution, which occasionally happens when hard and fast rules are not provided, while a population gets further and further from being able to fully comprehend the generalizations and implications provided.

There was intense competition for inclusion/exclusion of concepts and the Tory's kept out extensive explanation to the people of exact intent and HOW to see that intent manifested.

But its clear that the framers intended for us to alter or abolish, which implies the intended for us to have adequate power, which in turn implies that free speech has the purpose of creating the power by unifying the the people adequately to alter or abolish.

And as you say below "unnamed rights exist, OR, new ways of defining the entrant of rights granted, but inadequately integrated into law and the constitution.

Their freedom is not taken away. Our right is manifested by the draft revision of the 1st amendment I propose.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution​

They have violated the public trust as corporations with rights of personhood they should not have.

The American constitution will be destroyed by the infiltration of government before the American people gain the needed wisdom with media in control of information.

As soon as the chicken and egg issue is addressed, people will realize that the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged, enabling nearly all of the problems we have.

It is necessary to end the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, and I can think of no more direct place to do it than revising the 1st amendment to make it reflect the intents of the Declaration of Independence. Such intent would be there IF a massive social agenda had not bee unleashed upon the framers limiting their ability to define how to protect our rights.

Yes, attorneys do not have the proper intentions to unconditionally defend the constitution. The people do, I do. The latitude is provided by default when considering HOW to assure all amendments have constitutional intent at Article V. If the people cannot be informed adequately, they cannot participate, and then state legislators are defining constitutional into without the people having the final say.

Now, if you still cannot see that revision of the 1st is the most direct way to assure the PURPOSE of free speech is manifested, explain how you would see that the truth ABSOLUTELY gets to the people so they can developed the wisdom you describe.

 

I almost finished this once, but somehow it auto-erased.

This "deficiency" presupposes he moral integrity or the arbiters, which should enable them to determine Constitutional intent.

The Bill of Rights would not have been included if not for the persistence of its author, James Madison. Some say it was to appease his vanity.

Only if necessary, and only to reflect the will of the people. Your intention is to gather enough support to amend the Constitution in order to access the media to gain support for your ideals. This is what Meta777 refers to as a "circular argument".

I did not say, nor imply "inadequate". It was the intent of the Constitution to give judges of unquestionable moral character the latitude to determine the intent of the law, not to complicate justice by creating countless "loopholes".

I would rethink that before printing it again.

"Alter or abolish" will preserve the Constitution? When the American public demands the truth, the media will give it to them.

Many outlets of the media are accessible to us: newspaper editorals, these forums, pubic talk forums, writing or phoning members of Congress, ebooks, etc., etc., etc.. I myself am very involved but I cannot comment on that as this site does not authorize promotions of any type.

 

I responded to your questions, but somehow the response wasn't directed to you; but I'm learning.

 

The 2004 Presidential Election was won because the general public believed that the incumbent President could handle terrorism and the Iraq War better than a newcomer (IMO). Other than wartime concerns, in all the other elections that I can remember, money was the primary focal point.

However, a thriving economy requires a plenitude of consumers to generate product demand, so optimally, wealth distribution should allow all citizens AT LEAST enough capital to do their part in sustaining demand, thereby contributing to a healthy economy. This is not possible at this time because government is prioritizing corporate demands over the welfare of the general public.

THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE, AND IT IS NOT MERELY LIBERAL-MINDED THINKING. Bipartisan acknowledgement of the corruption and waste leading up to the bank bailouts should be reason enough to insist on closer monitoring of the entire corporate sector, which is now too big to fail, and obviously controls us.

The public sector is too big to fail, also, but excessive profits generated by a self-regulated corporate sector are gobbled up by top executives and stockholders, leaving workers and consumers with rapidly growing debt. These excessive profits are made possible by tightly regulating labor costs and manipulating market factors to enable sky-high pricing. Justifiable profits, exploitation, or extortion?

"Trickle-down" will not sustain our economy forever. It's a "carrot-on-a-stick".

I can remember my bank paying me 5% on my savings account, now it's nothing; but look at present credit card rates.

 

Is this the sort of thing you were referring to when you talked about "Doing things as a nation to prevent violations of life, liberty, and or property?"

Are you saying that you are unclear about what things are your justly owned property and which are not? I certainly am not.

 

Freedom and economy are usually not compatible with each other anyway.

 

It's best to compose in a text editor or word processor, then the fickle vagaries of web browsers cannot do such horrible things.

Trading "moral integrity" for awareness of "natural law, does not work. Natural law is the foundation of "moral integrity". Since the Magna Carta a class of people, leaders, had been acutely aware of "natural law" and sought to imbue social contract with it to increase "moral integrity" of the people in civil society.

The inclusion of the Bill of Rights does not presuppose its comprehensiveness or fidelity to the intents of the framers. Many people today bemoan the 14th amendment of the Bill of Rights for this reason. Tory influence was powerful in elite society which had a "trickle down" effect on attitude of the common people.

Consider, our unalienable rights are not included in the Bill of Rights. How can it possibly be considered comprehensive? Consider also, that the lawful methods of using our right to alter or abolish are also no where to be found.

We can thank God that we have the right to derive implication and inference from the esteemed writings of the framers to more perfectly define those rights and ways to protect them.

Hah! I believe the obvious destruction of unalienable rights FULLY indicates "necessity".

AND, by the way, the idea of "unalienable rights" and "alter or abolish" are not "my ideas". They are historical law.

Correct, I said "inadequately integrated into law and the constitution", and, if that was not true, this discussion would not be occurring now.

Hmmm, newspapers have refused to print stories that are critical to the publics ability to understand HOW unalienable rights are being destroyed, how rights are being violated, and how they are loosing their freedoms. HOW their very lives are threatened.

Here is an example where a federal lawsuit I filed against my municipality regarding mental health care, or its inadequate, ineffective state of existence, and the duty under state law to provide effective medical/mental health care was at issue, AND, the news paper fired and gagged 17 reporters and editors to prevent them from even talking about WHY theory were being gagged!

I had given a copy of the lawsuit to the first reporter fired 2 weeks before the firing. Both local papers were given a copy, the one not firing, supposedly competing with the other, larger, would not even do a story about the truth behind the firings, gaggings and resignations.

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

This is not the first time that such violations of the public trust by media relating to critical aspects of destruction of our unalienable rights has occurred.

Uh, there is a huge generalization there, as IF "the American public" was unified. It is not, which is a matter of circularity within this discussion, because this discussion is about creating unity adequate to alter (see the purpose of free speech manifested) or abolish if the government will not comply with our unified, lawful, demand. This is not the first time you've made this error.

My link above showed how the media and county used the courts, illicitly, and the courts complied, illegally, to prevent effective mental health care. And not just the local state court by gagging the reporters. the federal court secretly revised local court rules to deprive myself and co plaintiffs of a new magistrate and judge. Since that time two children of one co plaintiff have died. Since that time there have been 16 people killed by mass murderers, 1 of whom went to the county mental health department and could not be helped. The other had two psychologists who never discovered the long term plans of murder that the individual planned.

The entire idea of the 2006 lawsuit was to compel the municipality, which operates under reduced liability and so is the appropriate entity to develop experimental treatments. The media, county and courts colluded to prevent that, so the private psychologists were deprived of a developed procedure to use in determining the motive of the killer who proceeded to use knives and guns to kill 6 innocent university students. This is called the destruction of unalienable rights. Fatal shootings of unarmed citizens by law enforcement are also destructive of unalienable rights, but you probably know that.

 

Why when millions of illegals flood across the border to fill those low wage jobs?