How do you lead U.S. policies and politics towards the Age of Light? Below are some policy decisions that would help change the current situation that is wasteful, unfair, creates class warfare and encourages terrorism into a more free, fair, safe and representative government that our great nation was meant to have.
Naturally, this is a political platform, something that should be the goal based on current understandings. It's not immutable as new information may become available that would cause positions to change. However, the basic factor is that the preference would be towards freedom, liberty, personal responsibility for ones actions, justice and equal treatment and protection under the law. These hallmarks are preferable despite the negatives that often come with such great values, much like religious people may fast or otherwise deprive themselves for a greater cause.
It is better to let a person suffer from their own inability to handle freedom than it is to make everyone suffer with less freedom in a misguided effort to reduce harm. The U.S. is no Taliban, and imposing restrictions based on one group's religious views or misguided desire for safety ("if we could just save one life") is no reason to restrict freedoms; being held accountable for one's actions should another be harmed is the basis of American justice: innocent until proven guilty.
Just as martyrs die for their religious convictions, brave Americans must be willing to sacrifice some safety and moral homogeneity for freedom. Pornographers and the KKK hide behind freedom of expression, and other miscreants hide behind our other freedoms. But that must remain preferable to lost freedoms, as the just and good person can always avoid the ills that befall those miscreants by abstaining and working towards educating others of those ills so that they too can avoid them in the future.
In order to create a system in which laws are passed in a fair way, legislative bills should only have a single focus. This does not mean a bill cannot address multiple items provided each is designed to achieve a single goal. This would make bills more coherent and would be much easier to understand and vote for or against.
The current omnibus bills are what politicians created to enable pork barrel politics, in which our representatives vote for a bill only because it contains kickbacks for supporting causes they might not otherwise vote for. Such bloated bills allow political action committees to insert riders that favor a minority and skew an open and fair debate over a given bill. Politicians vote themselves pay raises in bills that provide for funding of Social Security and then claim they voted for Social Security. But if you vote against the bill because you don't want the unrelated pay raise provision to ride along, other politicians will attack you as being against the elderly.
Such odd groupings of unrelated topics are what create many so-called "flip flops" by politicians. A politician can vote against a bill that contains items that he agrees with because it also contains items that he doesn't agree with, and his political adversaries use such instances to blast his voting record by pointing out the "good ideas" he voted against without mentioning the "bad ideas" that were also included. Then, when the good idea appears in another more acceptable bill, he will vote for it, and thus he appears to vote both for and against a given policy.
But more frequently, congressmen vote for a bill because it contains provisions they want even if they know it contains other items that they disagree with. A politician will agree to vote for a bill he'd otherwise be against in return for having another politician agree to vote for another bill he's sponsoring even if the other politician would normally vote against it.
Roughly 0% of Americans read and understand such bills enacted on their behalf by those entrusted by the people. Few politicians even read them themselves, including the President. How can anybody be our representative if neither the citizens nor the politicians truly understand what is being voted on? It's plain crazy! If we don't control how laws are made and how our money is spent, then it's little surprise we ended up with an unfair, bloated, deficit-spending mess.
At the same time, the President should lose the "line item veto" as a single-purpose bill is either agreeable or not and should be treated as a package. For example, you can't be for a new program, but be against taxing people to pay for it. Both the program and the tax increase must be in a package and should be voted on together.
All bills that require spending to increase to fulfill the law would have to include a provision that increases taxes suitably to pay for the new spending. There should be no unfunded mandates. It's tiring to hear about some vote that appears to meet our needs only to learn later that there was never any money to back it up, thus effectively passing a law that tricks us into believing we've got something of value, only to really have received just another broken promise. If you are for the War in Iraq, then you should be willing to pay for that war today, not foist it upon our children while giving ourselves a tax cut to stimulate our economy at the expense of their economy.
Over 5 years, the income and capital gains taxes should be phased out while a flat, federal sales tax should be phased in. Each year the income and capital gains tax rates would drop by 20% while the sales tax would be instituted such that the goal rate would be achieved through 20% annual increments.
The sales tax would apply to all retail sales, be they for goods or services. All sales on purchases designed strictly for resale, such as the products purchased wholesale to later be resold in stores, would not be subject to the sales tax. Why can an accountanting firm sell millions of dollars worth of gimmicks to a huge energy concern tax free, while a simple soda or its straw sold to you is taxed?
All other taxes would likewise be phased out in 5 years, including specialty taxes like federal cigarette taxes, telecommunications taxes, gas taxes, etc.
After 5 years, capital gains, like regular income, would no longer be taxed. The initial purchase of equity in companies would be tax-free because of its clear investment benefit, but the resale of such equity would be subject to the sales tax. Such resale of equities in the marketplace produces liquidity, which is valuable, but no more valuable than the products and services markets that drive the economy. Such resale of existing stock no longer reflects an investment in the company behind the stock as that company no longer receives any of the proceeds of such sales. This is a change from true investment towards mere speculation. No other product in the world is bought and sold in such short intervals, with the buyers and sellers never actually taking possession. Such speculation in equities shouldn't be a protected sales transaction.
Products that are made outside of the country, but are then bought by people inside the U.S. would have to pay the tax. Items imported from outside the country that are not designed for resale would be subject to the sales tax, thus removing any incentive of buying products outside of the U.S. to avoid the tax.
States, counties and cities would be encouraged to follow the lead and convert their various taxes into a flat sales tax as well. I believe that taxpayers would demand it once they saw the benefits of simplicity and true fairness, and having more control and understanding of exactly what they are paying in taxes.
The more you buy, the more you'd pay in taxes, so richer people would pay more tax dollars, but at a fair rate that's imposed on all people within the U.S., including foreign visitors who purchase our products and services.
Because the tax rate is flat, it is truly fair, with equal protection of all citizens under the law, and with maximizing the power of market forces instead of attempting to manipulate the markets with artificial barriers and incentives.
Such a law would remove the currently flawed system that favors moving buinsess operations overseas, keeping income outside the U.S. in tax havens, and would even affect illegal aliens, drug dealers and others who are in a cash-only business in which determining income is impossible. Income tax cheating would simply go away, and there would no longer be a "marriage tax penalty." The IRS would be able to focus its collection energies on retail sales businesses and uncovering illegal wholesale transactions, a much smaller and more manageable endeavor.
A flat sales tax would encourage earning more money and saving and investing that money. It would allow poor people to make more money and keep whatever they don't spend. It would reduce class warfare ("the rich get all the tax breaks when they should pay more because they can" or "the poor don't work because they're lazy and living off welfare and don't contribute through taxes" or "the middle class shoulders all of the taxes, but gets few breaks or benefits" -- sound familiar?).
And finally, it would make it extremely clear just how much we are being taxed for the benefits being received. Today, with myriad taxes and progressive rates, it's nearly impossible to know what percentage of your money is being taken for government services.
Vouchers would be provided equally to all Americans in the same amount per citizen. Vouchers allow each person to spend this shared wealth derived through forced taxation on approved public or private organizations that provide a service related to the purpose of the voucher. By allowing individuals to make their own choices, a wider assortment of better tuned products and services will be available too all people, not just the rich who already have this choice. Like the flat tax, by providing all people with the same benefit, class warfare ends and there is no penalty as a person slowly increases the amount of money they earn and save.
Today, it's well documented that only a small percentage of government spending goes towards the poor. And the elderly as a class tend to have the lowest rate of poverty, unlike when Social Security was instituted. Rather than attempting to benefit one group at the expense of another, which hasn't really occurred in practice anyway, why not simply ensure that all Americans are given an equal benefit for the amount that voters are willing to pay for?
Unlike the communist "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," the free and fair prospect is "from each fairly, to each fairly." Since rich people have more money, any flat amount given to them would be a small percentage of their riches, whereas the same amount would be a high percentage of a poor person's "wealth." This would allow all Americans to receive a fair amount of basic benefits.
School vouchers could also be available to adults who wish to further their education, but only if this benefit were expanded to include adults. Clearly, the initial intent would be focused on school-age children who are required by law to attend school and gain sufficient skills to be a good citizen and then work to benefit society as a whole. The voucher would be for the amount deemed necessary to pay for a year's education in the local public school systems (be they primary, secondary or higher education). Such vouchers would allow for schools that have religious, musical, artistic, technical, scientific or athletic underpinnings, as well as schools that go year round, or last a full work day for those parents who also work all day. One size has never fit all, and vouchers allow for a variety of solutions that meet the various needs of a diverse population.
Health care vouchers would be provided to every citizen in an amount necessary to acquire a package of basic services as suggested by an independent board of health practitioners. Additions to the basic services payable through health care vouchers would require voter approval. The government would be allowed to operate health facilities that sell "basic health services" as outlined in the plan, provided it could operate on the funds acquired through the vouchers and additional purchases. The government may even decide to offer an insurance program that could be purchased for the price of the voucher, but only those who choose to use that program would be obliged. Religious, alternative and traditional health care would be allowed to proliferate to meet the wide variety of health needs and preferences.
Welfare/food vouchers would be provided to every citizen in an amount necessary to acquire basic food and/or housing. Basic needs would be suggested by an independent board of social services practitioners. Additions to the basic services payable through welfare vouchers would require voter approval. The government would be allowed to operate grocery stores that sell "basic food items" as outlined in the plan offering, provided it could operate on the funds acquired through the vouchers and additional purchases. Or the government might decide to use its power to buy in bulk to purchase certain basic food items at a reduced price and then resell them through regular grocery stores. The options increase once we learn to let go and let the marketplace work. Good ideas will expand, and bad ideas will die off. This simply doesn't happen with government programs that may start off with a noble goal, but then never end despite no longer meeting current needs.
Social Security and retirement plans would no longer be separately necessary as the basics are provided through the voucher programs. Therefore, the Social Security payroll taxes would no longer be levied on businesses and individuals.
If Americans want a benefit today, they should pay for the benefit today. Even if it means borrowing for a long term benefit, the tax rate should be adjusted to account for the payments plus interest, and the rate can be lowered in the future once all the payments are made. Getting something for nothing simply doesn't work.
All such vouchers would be paid using government issued voucher cards, with one provided to each citizen in a similar fashion as social security cards are issued today. There would be no requirement that the vouchers be fully spent, and voucher dollars could be saved to be spent in subsequent years. Flexibility allows people to meet their needs as they see fit. Maybe they'd rather be more frugal for a few years in order to purchase something better later. Choice works for the taxpayers and the beneficiary.
Clearly, deficit spending is required from time to time. The government must be able to borrow in order to purchase long-lasting benefits. For example, if you build a bridge, it will be useful for many years and therefore paying for the bridge should be allowed to occur by borrowing, much like we borrow to purchase a home. However, the government is not a private citizen, and the government does not earn its money; government "revenue" is simply tax dollars earned by it citizens and coerced into paying under penalty of law. Therefore, deficit spending for general operations should not be permitted. Such deficit spending hides the true costs, allowing us to enjoy benefits without any consideration for how much they cost. That's a recipe for financial disaster and is an unfair burden on future taxpayers who may not have received any of the benefits consumed years before it was paid for.
In order to reduce repeated deficit spending, the government should attempt to adjust the flat sales tax rate according the average government spending and taxable receipts from the previous 5 years. The government spending figure lets you know roughly how much money the government is expected to spend. The previous 5 years' taxable receipts lets you determine the amount of money actually collected. A simple graph makes it fairly easy to do short term projections of future spending and tax receipts. By taking 5-year averages (with each year adjusted for inflation to normalize the numbers over 5 years), the resulting numbers will smooth the bumps in the road that are sure to occur because the world doesn't operate in a pre-ordained, steady way (think 9/11). This would allow taxation to remain somewhat steady, yet gradually change to meet the growing or shrinking economic capacity of its taxpayers and the services they agree they'll collectively buy for themselves.
It simply makes no sense to increase taxes when people are economically hard pressed. By using a 5-year average, slowdowns in the economy won't immediately be reflected in lowered government spending, thus creating a one-two punch in which hard economic times are immediately reflected in lowered government benefits. But if the economy continues to fail over years, then it makes sense that government benefits would have to be reduced, the tax rate increased or deficit spending would have to increase. Deficit spending for long term benefits is clearly preferential to such spending that simply results in debts that live longer than the benefit.
So, if the 5 year average says the government spends about $1 trillion, the flat tax rate should be adjusted to bring in $1 trillion dollars based on the 5 year average of taxable sales. With a continual adjustments based on actual spending and actual taxes collected, the government will tend not to maintain and grow deficits that hurt the economy of its citizens and increase the threat of national stability over the long haul.
Public schools are traditionally locally controlled, but certain federal guidelines would help standardize much needed reforms. The details of schooling should remain locally controlled, but the mechanisms used have a national character. As the country becomes more mobile with advances in telecommunications and travel, the assumption that a child born in a given town will remain in that town as an adult no longer holds. Because of the voucher program, public schools would need to operate based on the value of the voucher and they would need to compete against private schools. Clearly, public schools would have an advantage in that they'd be allowed to operate in publicly owned buildings on publicly owned property. If they cannot compete with such an advantage, then the schools clearly should not remain in operation.
Public schools should only be required to teach all children who present themselves as willing to learn. Students who are caught bringing weapons to school would be given only a single "warning" before being expelled for a time commensurate with the infraction. Students who use weapons against other students would be permanently expelled. Students who repeatedly disrupt classes, abuse other students or deface school property would be expelled, permanently if they cannot learn to control their behavior. All such expulsions would require school board oversight to ensure that the student was fairly treated and that parents were properly informed of their children's activities. The idea is that only those students who come ready to learn have a right to receive a free public education. Students who cause harm to other students or deface property lower the morale of all students, and it's time that public schools no longer accept unruly behavior. One of the primary reasons why public schools have a hard time competing with private schools is that private schools are not forced to keep students who don't want to attend.
Those students who are expelled would need to find alternative schools. Such alternative schools would include those that teach various arts, sports, specific trades (not every student is an intellectual, and learning an honest trade is both valuable to society and praiseworthy), or even those that use strict, military-like discipline in an attempt to bring order into the lives of students who are out of control.
For those that simply cannot cope with schools, it is likely their parents would have to care for them or they'd be end up in prison or institutions that treat whatever mental or physical defect precludes the children from learning. Tough love? Not really. Everyone may be created equal, but they don't all act equally well. Those who apply themselves already get ahead in this world, and it's time we stop allowing those who don't to bring the down the rest.
Corporations, foreign entities and others not allowed to vote would be prohibited from directly donating money or services to politicians or political parties. Corporations and non-citizens have no vote, and therefore have no direct voice in elections. Corporations would have a free speech right to donate unlimited money to non-party political organizations, though such contributions would not be a tax free donation (they'd incur a sales tax). Employees within a corporation would be free to donate as individuals.
Individuals would obtain the right to unlimited spending for contributions to a given candidate (tax free) and to political parties (not tax free). All such donations to politicians and political parties would become part of the public record. It's unfortunate, but the parties would likely be overrun by new politically active non-party organizations (such as think tanks) to avoid public disclosure, but this is a problem we'd just have to live with in a free society. At least the money given to them would be taxable, and the when the organizations buy things like ads, they'd also pay more in taxes. Limiting free speech is not the answer to this problem.
Political action committees would be allowed to operate unfettered, though they would be under the same rules as corporations in terms of not being able to contribute money, and the money they raise would be subject to the sales tax.
In order to allow for less money to be required for political campaigns, all people who are able to get themselves on a ballot would be allowed to attend regular, monthly public debates starting 6 months before an election. The debates would be open to the press, and the press would be encouraged (regulated TV and radio over the public spectrum would be required) to cover the debates to help each candidate receive a fair amount of free exposure to the public. Each debate would cover no more than two topics that considered important by the media and a public debating council.
In addition, in order to help keep Americans and the political class well educated, the government would sponsor quarterly debates on issues of importance to the country, including the military, environment, economy, education and foreign policy. These debates would also be open to the press like the political campaigns. These debates would not necessarily include politicians, but would include experts within their respective fields to give everyone a broader view of policies so help keep everyone better informed of the issues.
The Patriot Act and related laws that weaken civil liberties and increase government surveillance of Americans without standard warrants based on evidence of suspected criminal activity would be repealed. The right to reasonable search and seizure based on traditional warrants of suspected criminals will be returned to the people. Civil asset forfeiture would also be terminated, with such assets only being confiscated upon arrest for a specific charge, and with forfeiture only allowed should the party be convicted and the sentence specifies forfeiture.
Illegal immigrants would no longer be afforded any legal rights within the U.S. that are not granted to criminals. Illegal immigrants flout U.S. law and subvert the process that the law abiding follow to gain legal immigration status. This means that there would be no schooling, medical coverage, driver's license, work visas or the like provided to illegal aliens. However, a sick or injured illegal alien, like other criminals, would be allowed to receive treatment until such time as the person could be reasonably deported.
When possible, such persons would be fined and detained to perform supervised community service for their crime before being deported. Deportation alone simply is an insufficient deterrent. A repeat offense would result in the doubling of fines and supervised community service for each re-occurrence.
At the same time, legal immigration would be increased to match the effective rate of legal and illegal immigration today. The country is greatly improved by an influx of immigrants.
Software and business processes would no longer be allowed to be patented, and such previously awarded patents would be terminated. Software is a form of useful writing, and its protection should be limited to copyrights and trade secrets. Business processes simply are not machines or devices worthy of patent protection.
The patent system was sold on the premise that small inventors would be able to share their good inventions with the public and, in return, they'd get a 20-year monopoly on exploiting them. But the reality is that large corporations inundate the patent office and use them as weapons against big and small companies as well as individuals. The threat of litigation alone can close most small firms that cannot afford the costs of defending themselves, even when they know they created the software with their own efforts. Of course, this is true of all patents, but it's particularly problematic in the software field. Software is a rapidly evolving field, with literally millions of programmers, from professional engineers, to office workers, to scientists, to lawyers, to part-time dabblers. Stealing someone's software is a crime, but solving a problem using your own ingenuity and experience should not be.
Just as music is written and copyrighted, even if the utility of the music doesn't manifest itself until it's played by musicians on instruments, software is written and doesn't manifest itself until "played" on a computer. If a software program is written in a book, everybody agrees it can be copyrighted. In fact, all software, including open source software, is copyrighted as a writing already. The problem arises when the author (typically an employee at a large corporation with the lawyers and dollars required to obtain a patent) attempts to claim that the ideas within the writing are so novel in terms of machinery that they also deserve to be patented. But such machinery is only manifested as ideas and patterns of logic within the writing, and thus it does not deserve patent protection and more than a well reasoned argument in a debate.
Imagine if an author had to check if anybody had previously written a story that included a certain theme, twist, or even a play on words? We're not talking about whether they used a specific sentence or paragraph, just if the theme was the same. There is no mechanism in place for authors or software developers to determine with any reasonable assurance that an idea manufactured in their own minds to solve a problem or issue they are experiencing has been patented before them (or is currently pending a patent, since it often takes years between the filing of a patent and it becoming public knowledge). Such a patent system does not promote innovation; it hinders it.
Programmers write code, and thus they deserve copyright and trade secret protections. But a specific grouping of ideas and concepts and logic simply should not preclude others from arriving at the same conclusions. All music, poetry, theater, books and newspaper articles, like software, were built on the work of previous people. To have a modern author claim that some new combination belongs to them is absurd, like claiming that the idea expressed here regarding patent law could be patented so that if anybody else wanted to write about software patents and agreed they shouldn't be patented, they'd be in violation of my patent. Patently absurd! Our strength as a nation comes from its great ideas, and we should let people think and create without such an obstacle.
Stem cell research should be allowed to continue as long as the research doesn't harm others: there's no victim or legal representative of the victim who complains. Clearly, scientists should respect the wishes of the people responsible for the creations of the stem cells as to whether they can be used for research.
Abortion is politically charged because certain religious groups have opposed it on moral grounds. Abortion is a true failure and certainly is a poor form of birth control. I believe most women do not take abortion casually and would prefer not to become pregnant in the first place. There may be a few women who have abortions casually, but they are in the vast minority.
The option of abortion should remain legal as the choice to bear children must remain with the woman. Sure, it would be nice if women sought guidance from the father, and perhaps from family, friends and other secular or religious counselors, but what one thinks is nice and what the law requires are distinct. If you don't like abortion, then you shouldn't have one and you shouldn't get a woman pregnant who is not interesting in having a child with you.
It seems rather natural to keep with the notion that a live birth is what grants a fetus the rights of a person under the law. Using a technical, medical definition of viability or the like seems fraught with peril when there's a long-standing understanding that birth is when legal rights begin. Human life may arguably arise sooner (the DNA and potential for human life is in all of our cells), but legal protection does not have to follow. Parents have always made life and death decisions for their sick or injured children. Some might claim that individual legal protection doesn't even occur at birth since a newborn has no understanding of the law, rights, language, culture or society and therefore is not truly any more protected than an animal, even though the animal may be self-sufficient. After all, should fetuses be signed up for Social Security? Could a fetus receive federal funds? Could a fetus sue its parents? Would a pregnant woman have to buy two tickets for admittance? Could a pregnant woman enter an adults-only club, or would she be contributing to the deliquency of a minor? Rather than argue about whether a fetus is a human or not, live birth seems like a logical transition towards civil recognition. When a baby is born, it is issued a birth certificate, given a name, prints may be taken, pictures are shared with others, parties are thrown and we celebrate that day annually for the rest of their lives. Clearly, birth is the time when a child should receive its legal rights.
Besides, I don't know of any legal or religious standing that shows a tradition of treating fetuses as children. For example, when a woman miscarries, is there a tradition of holding a funeral and burial? A woman who wants her baby and miscarries is often emotionally hurt, but many early term miscarriages are hardly detectable compared to non-fertilized menstruation. Such grief should not carry any legal stigma or repercussions. Would a woman who fails to take care of her physical health and then miscarries be subject to second degree murder? If she fell and miscarried, would it be manslaughter? If she had an abortion, would it be first degree murder, a capital offense? Rather than create criminals out of women who decide they do not want to give birth to a child or who miscarry, it seems wiser to assume that a fetus does not receive its legal rights until it is born alive.
Just because a fetus does not have legal rights, though, doesn't mean that a pregnant woman who is abused in a manner that results in the death or injury of her fetus would not be able to seek damages for pain and suffering. Such a loss is real for expecting parents. A loved and cared for fetus is a wonderful thing, full of potential and excitement.
The Catholic Church (and other religious groups) will oppose, but there should also be an increase in education regarding birth control options and to make those options available to those who are sexually active. This does not mean a free give-a-way (unless taxpayers voted to increase their taxes to cover them), but it does mean that those who seek such contraceptives, and those organizations that want to give them away, should be allowed to do so. Each unwanted pregnancy that's averted is one less abortion to be considered.
Finally, the country needs a new adoption program that makes it much easier, quicker and cheaper to adopt children. Adoption is surely the most moral way to conclude an unwanted pregnancy and it should be encouraged. Woman should have the option of receiving at least $5,000 for carrying her baby to term instead of aborting the fetus, including receiving pre-natal care. The amount is not enough to cause women to become pregnant for the money, but enough to help encourage her to put up with the huge effort and risk associated with carrying a baby to term. The agency itself would make another $5000, meaning that a person who wants to adopt a baby would pay perhaps $10,000 plus medical expenses, and the amount would not be refundable once the baby was born. The adoptive parents would not be able to back out of the deal regardless of the outcome of the birth, other than they would have the option of putting the baby up for adoption just as the birth mother did.
Marriage is both a civil and religious ceremony. Gay marriage would be allowed as a civil ceremony, providing the same legal protections regardless of sexual orientation. There simply is no overriding federal reason why one set of adult citizens should be denied equal protection under the law. In denying a gay marriage, the rights of two adult citizens are being denied. Clearly, procreation is an important part of traditional marriages, but marriages are not (currently) required to be open to procreation to be recognized by the state. Therefore the inability to procreate cannot be a reason against gay marriage.
Certainly, religious recognition of such marriages would be left to the respective religions, and they would not be forced to perform any given marriage. Whatever the rule for marriage, it must be consistent and applied fairly to all adults, or civil law should no longer confer any special rights to married citizens, and a new civil union should apply to all adults, with marriage left to the realm of religious or secular institutions unaffiliated with the government.
Someone needs to offer a compelling reason as to why gay marriage would harm society. Traditional marriage is impossible to define, since there are traditions that go back to biblical times that indicate women didn't have any choice regarding their husbands, polygamy was allowed, having children with slaves was acceptable, young girls could be married, and marriage between the races was unacceptable. Today, marriages may end days later, may be performed in the nude or by an Elvis impersonator, and may occur numerous times over the course of someone's life. Clearly, divorce destroys more marriages than any other institution, yet the politicians don't seem eager to ban them.
Lastly, a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage is overkill. Let the states that issue marriage certificates decide. And states that do not allow certain types of marriage can be free to not recognize those marriages that would not be considered legal within their state.
While the U.S. has certainly enriched itself by using its military force against various enemies throughout its history, continued "might makes right" thinking is unsupportable. The U.S. is already the richest, strongest and best nation in the world, and it is time we supported justice over greed. It's time we recognized the danger that exists in our effectively smaller world, with more highly populated areas, faster travel and communications, more destructive weapons, and more worldwide competition over dwindling natural resources. Cooperation is becoming ever more important to maintain security for all.
The current war on terror is proof that a more just and fair U.S. will find itself safer if it seeks friends rather than creates enemies. Israel has seen that killing its enemies has not reduced terrorism, and the Palestinians are proof that spending money to destroy and isolate is fruitless.
The first step is for the U.S. to either augment NATO or create a new united federation of free and democratic nations (UFFDN?). While the U.S. must remain a member of the United Nations, the U.N. itself is a somewhat corrupt organization and must serve the interests of free and democratic nations as well as those of tyrants, communists and totalitarian regimes.
The members of UFFDN would work together as a worldwide security force to protect all nations that are threatened by foreign governments or seriously corrupt and dangerous regimes that attack its own people on a large scale. Therefore, smaller nations would not have to focus a large part of their limited resources in acquiring weapons that can thwart attacks from nearby rivals.
This certainly does not mean that communists or other totalitarian regimes would automatically be subject to attack, but if those regimes began a campaign of death and destruction against foreign nations or even its own people to a point where action simply must take place to support a local uprising or defend an invaded nation, the UFFDN would restore order.
All UFFDN members would agree that they would no longer sell military-grade arms or weapons systems to any other country. Furthermore, UFFDN would not provide aid that could allow other governments to use the money to buy such weapons. Stopping the proliferation of weapons is crucial for reducing world tensions, reducing the likelihood that governments will attack other nations or abuse its citizens with those weapons. The UFFDN would share in the acquisition of basic military weapons, but all weapons of mass destruction, long range rockets, submarines, space weapons, etc. would no longer be sold. The focus would be on weapons necessary to police other nations that do not respect their neighbors' borders or the basic human rights of the people within its borders.
The U.S. has a long history of providing weapons to a foreign regime only to later fight against that very country.
The sale of low grade nuclear materials that are suitable for energy generation, but not for weapons, would be managed in a free and open market by UFFDN nations such that other nations would not be subject to being cut off from purchasing the materials needed to operate their plants. The same would be true of other forms of energy, including electricity, natural gas and oil. This would reduce the fear that many foreign nations have that if they aren't self sufficient, they are at risk of being held hostage.
The UFFDN members would operate as a free trade zone (more on this below), allowing both human and financial capital to flow easily across their borders. The UFFDN would stop all trade with rogue nations that appear to be focused on waging war against the UFFDN, neighboring countries or its people.
The UFFDN would allow member nations to be socialist or communist or the like provided those governments were elected by its people in free elections (as monitored by UFFDN election officials) and did not engage in wars against others or its people.
Provided Cuba held a fair election, whether it retained Castro or not, trade would resume with Cuba.
The UFFDN would be prohibited from overthrowing another country's government unless that country was a direct threat to UFFDN members. Potential threats would be treated with trade embargos, increases in policing around the threatening nation, and the use of the full force of the UFFDN should that nation actual begin to act against the UFFDN. Bad intel is no excuse for war. You don't attack unless you know you have to defend yourself.
The U.S. has the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. would be committed to ensuring that it has a powerful military capable of working with the UFFDN to ensure peace throughout the world, and to ensure the safety and protection of the U.S. against foreign attacks. The U.S. needs to maintain its leadership position militarily, but it must do so without being a threat to other nations. The UFFDN would help preclude the U.S. from engaging in unilateral, unprovoked attacks against nations based on faulty intelligence. And the U.S. would join other countries in signing treaties that attempt to reduce development and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.
The UFFDN would work together to fight terrorists. Extreme care would be taken not to confuse governments with terrorists unless there is proof the government is aiding the terrorists. Should such a government be found to aid terrorists, then that government would be subject to removal by the UFFDN.
In regards to the current wars, the Age of Light would recognize that at least a two-pronged approach would be necessary. First, there would be a coordinated effort to publicly air the disputes among the terrorists and those they terrorize. It is important to both understand the views of the others in an effort to reconcile differences and reach a peace, but also to publicly air the claims so the world can better judge what is reasonable and what is not. Second, there would be a strong enforcement angle.
In Afghanistan, it would have made the most sense to demand that the Taliban regime turn over Osama or otherwise reject Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks. Clearly, a regime cannot turn over someone they do not have in custody, just as the U.S. has failed to turn over Osama after years of war and hunting. But the regime's existence would then hinge on whether they cooperated with, or at least didn't hinder the effort to capture or kill Al Qaeda leadership including Osama. If they claimed they couldn't turn them over, but they would either help capture or at least stand down, the regime would have been allowed to remain in power. But if they fought against the enforcement, then surely the right to attack the regime would be fully justified. However, the U.S. should not have lost its focus until it had completed the job: capturing and killing all of the Al Qaeda leadership. Allowing them to remain empowers the terrorists who appear able to defy the U.S. and gain in stature among those likely to share the angry views of Al Qaeda.
Iraq likely never would have been attacked unless there was far more compelling evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 or was helping future terrorist attacks. Saddam is a bad man and bad ruler, but the world is full of such people and there was no compelling to reason to attack Iraq at this time. It appears that there is better evidence that Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine and Saudi Arabia are more highly involved with terrorists and WMD than Saddam was. Perhaps Saddam, under the heavy burden of the embargos, and a thorough trouncing of Al Qaeda would have helped Saddam realize that his old ways were no longer acceptable. Perhaps not, and we're left with the same situation today in Libya, in which a "madman" appears ready to cooperate, even if it's far from clear that they really are.
World opinion and a concerted world-wide effort to combat current and future terrorism has been harmed by widening the war on terror to include Iraq with its faulty intelligence. When faulty intel comes from multiple countries, it implies that the intel was not valid, but was perhaps treated to make it appear more valuable than it really was. It seems clear that there's sufficient evidence that many thought the claims were unsupported, but yet multiple spy agencies apparently suffered from huge intelligence failures. It seems unlikely that the intelligence agencies around the world would all fail with the same misinformation and all would fail with no real spies that provide reliable information. This rush to attack Iraq has been a huge setback for world cooperation and has fired up those who hate America and hope to defeat it. The U.S. looks weaker by not being able to establish peace in Iraq or Afghanistan, by not being able to capture Osama, by having other nations stop supporting us, and by having Americans reach the point where most no longer support the Iraq invasion. This is the exact opposite message we needed to send to terrorists. That message should have been: you attack us, and we'll take you out. Iraq and the Osama stories both leave the impression that the U.S. can't lead and win this war, making us look more vulnerable and making the world less safe.
An all volunteer military is the preferred mechanism except in times of war. By relying on volunteers, the U.S. keeps its focus on freedom and realizes that not all people are equally suited or desire to serve in the military. In addition, many poorer people are able to use the military as a way to gain an education and other important life skills that will serve them well once they leave military service.
With that said, however, military pay must be high enough to ensure the wages are fair for the level of work and commitment its troops must endure. When wages are too low, more talented people tend to prefer to work elsewhere, and the poor who choose to serve are inadequately compensated for their work. This is a form of coercive enslavement as the military is not a traditional job: you cannot quit, you lose many rights and liberties, you are stationed where they want for how long they want, you must do the job you're ordered to do, and you must put your life on the line. If our troops really are heroes, then they should be paid a reasonable market wage.
When the country is at war, a draft should be instituted should troop forces be deemed insufficient to meets its commitments and maintain a healthy reserve to attend to potential new threats that may arise while at war. A draft ensures a fair and balanced level of service in defense of our nation. This will certainly make decisions to go to war more carefully planned and thought out since those who must pay the ultimate price will not be limited to the poor who choose the military primarily for economic reasons.
The draft should have a range of services to accommodate those who are not physically capable, as well as those who may be fit, but are conscientious objectors. Rather than being given a pass from all service, they would be directed to provide aid and reconstruction services for the various programs operated by the U.S. and the UFFDN.
In an ideal world, free trade makes a lot of sense. Like the free trade that occurs throughout the 50 states in the U.S., the concept is sound for consumers and producers. Producers get a larger market in which to sell their goods, consumers get more choices, and both save the real cost increases that result from quotas and tariffs.
Unfortunately, free trade with foreign governments needs to take place on a case by case basis. A lot of so-called free trade today is not truly free. Certain industries continue to receive special protections, and human capital is often not as free to cross a border as do capital and products. Therefore, for free trade to be granted to another nation:
The border issue is particularly interesting because without it Americans are not allowed to easily move to a country where the cost of living could be dramatically lower in order to retain their job, and those in poor nations with fewer employee benefits and rights cannot choose to move here for those jobs. It's simply not fair for the jobs and capital to move away if the people cannot follow.
For example, claiming free trade between the U.S. and a poor nation is really not a fair deal because the nations are not equally developed. The poor nation does not subject its people to the similar levels of taxation, with similar regulations, similiar employee rights and minimum wages, similar human rights, etc. It is silly for an American farmer, computer programmer, accountant, telemarketer or doctor to have to compete with people who may earn 10 to 100 times less than the American. It is impossible for an American who has a higher cost of living to compete at this economic level, and because the poor country is not of the same "class" of country, people in the poor country may like to move here, but few Americans would care to move there.
America has grown big and powerful because it protected its borders and industries for the past 225 years. To claim that free trade is the only answer now doesn't ring true.
For those countries that are not first world democracies, free trade with the U.S. would not be appropriate. For these situations, limited free trade and increasing trade are the right way to go, to help elevate those countries while not gouging Americans in the process. We cannot protect certain unskilled industries forever, but we cannot assume that all American must become poor in order to compete with the poor elsewhere.
Torts are an extremely complicated issue, trying to pit the rights of victims of actual abuse against the rights of businesses to operate and make mistakes that don't result in awards that are overly expensive and seemingly whimsical. Being fat isn't McDonald's fault unless they lie significantly about the calories in their food, and their hot coffe was never meant to be worn on your lap. Bars sell alcohol, and when you drink and get drunk, it's your responsibility. Medicine is not an exact science, and sick people get sicker and sometimes die. At the same time, restaurants do poison their customers with e.coli, bars sell alcohol to minors or obviously drunk patrons, and doctors make terrible errors. The key is in balancing these interests and keeping juries from awarding large sums that far exceed the harm that resulted.
In an effort to create a fair and balanced system, torts need limits, but not fixed limits. A $250,000 cap would be unjust for many victims who easily could have lost more in economic value than that. While it's impossible to create a true fair market value for a given human life, or the loss of a limb, or the loss of being functional due to illness or injury, it seems we need experts to assess these matters to create a basis to assist judges and juries who must come up with reasonable compensatory values. Whenever possible, if compensation can be handled in a way that doesn't require economic assessments, then so much the better. Unfortunately, such scenarios are rare, but it is possible that some wrongs can be righted by having the defendent perform some sort of community, educational or personal service as restitution.
For example, when reduced to dollars and cents, the economic value of a life or limb or lost time can be measured in terms of the expected or projected wealth of a person based on their personal experience, including that of family members and those in similar occupations. This, unfortunately, cannot measure potential value (who would have projected the many billions of dollars of wealth created by Bill Gates if he had been killed in high school?), but torts simply cannot be made fair with assumptions of grandeur any more than they can be of lost fortunes (riches to rags), which are also quite common. We only have the data that is real up until the point of harm, as well as a potential factor based on the economic success of similar parties. Such a dollar amount is crucial to figuring out the base economic value of a person, so that a given loss can be construed as a percentage of that total (was the loss a total loss of economic benefit, or only partial?), and then multiplied by the number of economic years remaining for the person. This is the closest approximation for actual losses that can be reasonably determined by courts of justice. Actuaries should be able to provide reasonable assessments, including average values that could be used as a minimum to compensate young or otherwise unproven victims who may not have yet established a strong economic basis.
However, coupled with economic loss come pain and suffering losses. These are certainly harder to evaluate and estimate. In the case of torts, I'd suggest that pain and suffering, when reduced to an economic number, should never exceed the economic value of the life or limb as calculated above. In order to compensate lawyers, it seems reasonable that all attorney's fees should be paid by the losing defendant, with a potential bonus equal to the amount awarded to the victim.
Finally, there is a punishment factor that must be entertained. Fines and punative awards should not be given to the victim or the victim's family any more than what would happen in any other criminal investigation (note that some fines for criminal misconduct should be given to the victim as compensation, and that may apply here in certain cases). The punishment factor should, in fact, withstand the scrutiny of criminal law and have the potential for the kinds of punishments meted out by criminal convictions, including fines, community service and jail. It should not be a matter of the tort claim whatsoever. A doctor who has committed malpractice that requires punishment (gross malfeasance, negligence or dereliction of duty) shouldn't simply be hit with higher insurance premiums. Additionally, all such judgments, whether criminal or not, should become part of the public record of the business entity so that future customers could gauge the known risks based on past performance.
To balance for the costs paid by negligent parties, torts need a system in which a reasonable set of attorneys' fees would be paid by the losing party who sues. Clearly, the plaintiff cannot be victimized and forced to pay for all such fees because a business defendent may be more capable of hiring lots of expensive legal representation, gambling that it can win while at the same time intimidating the victim. But there must be some constraint against filing of frivolous claims, and the victim and victim's lawyer should certainly be held accountable for the fees that they themselves had incurred in pressing their case. Thus the purported victim would be subject to the cost of his attorney, times two to account for a fair estimate of the legal fees of the defendant's attorney should he fail to win his case. This also works well in that a rich plaintiff will tend to spend more to win his case, but at the risk of having to lose more if they are not able to win the case. Without that balance, simply suing another party can create huge economic hardship for the defendent, even if the defendent is not guilty.
Note that the tort fees would not include any of the fees associated with a criminal trial should punishment be warranted.
Capital punishment should only be reserved for those cases in which there is not only "no reasonable doubt," but there's no doubt whatsoever. In other words, capital punishment should be limited to capital crimes in which there is simply no doubt about who the perpetrator was and what happened to the victim. All capital crimes should be punishable, including all appeals, within one year. Any case that requires additional time must not be considered for capital punishment as that shows that some doubt must exist.
Insanity should not be considered in cases of capital punishment. An insane person who commits capital crimes is simply too dangerous to be allowed an excuse, and this restriction would eliminate the costs associated with criminals hoping to avoid such punishment by claiming insanity, be it temporary or not.
When there is such doubt, life imprisonment without chance for parole is a reasonably harsh penalty. This will prevent capital punishment from being levied by mistake.
The current criminal justice system fails to provide for rehabilitation and restitution. Whenever practical, all crimes should include a form of restitution. Direct fines should be levied against those who have the financial wherewithal to pay them or can be employed to repay the debt in a reasonable time. For those who do not have the funds, community service should be used to compensate the community and victims for their past criminal acts.
There would be a general repeal of all laws in which there's no clear victim. The victim should either be able to stand up and explain exactly how they've been harmed, or if the victim is killed or otherwise incapacitated, the state or family should be able to clearly articulate how the perpetrator harmed the victim. There should be no such thing as a "victimless crime."
Mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines should be abolished. Guidelines should be created with the idea that judges are encouraged follow them as appropriate, but it is up to judges to determine extenuating circumstances that may either increase or decrease a given sentence. The guidelines are critical so that citizens have a reasonable understanding of the punishment that can be levied for various crimes. The electorate should be informed of how judges average sentences compared to the guidelines to help them understand whether a given judge appears to be overly lenient or overly harsh. For non-elected judges, the electorate should still be informed to aid their appeals to their representatives in congress.
So-called white collar crimes need to receive sentences that better reflect the severity of these crimes. While they are not violent, the harm committed by identity theft, falsifying books, stock manipulations, etc. should be treated in a way that better balances the harm committed to those of traditional crimes like non-violent burglary.
Personal ownership of firearms would continue to be protected. The use of guns for hunting, sport shooting, self protection and as a final stand against tyranny simply outweighs any need to restrict gun ownership.
However, use of a gun or other significant weapon in the commission of a crime should double the punishment had the crime occurred without such a weapon. If anybody is harmed by the weapon during the commission of the crime, the penalty should include the penalty for the assault, and then doubled because it occurred during the commission of a crime. This balances the rights to protect oneself with the added responsibility that comes from owning one. In the end, being shot, stabbed, run over or beaten with a bat is pretty much the same crime.
Responsible gun ownership would remain unfettered, while the illegal trafficking or use of guns would carry a more significant penalty.
In respect to the repeal of victimless crimes, recreational drugs, prostitution, smoking bans in restaurants/clubs, and gambling laws should be abolished in favor of a well-regulated system to ensure quality, safety and fair choices among consenting adults.
Smoking bans in taverns always seemed the most silly. The tavern owner, employees and customers all want to be in a smoking environment because they all enjoy smoking. But some else who does like smoking creates laws that "protect" smokers from themselves. Yet smoking is probably the least "dangerous" activity of the night, with drinking alcohol having a higher risk of death, and driving to and from the tavern having the highest risk. But they ban smoking, the activity with the lowest risk of killing the participant.
Most abuses in drugs, prostitution and gambling occur precisely because all control is lost when the activities move to the black market. Children become victims and targets of criminals who operate these services because they are powerless and because, if caught, the law tends to be more lenient towards children.
The best way to maintain control over such activities is the same as is done today with pharmaceuticals, tobacco and liquor. There is no way to prevent all abuse, and like the violence associated with Prohibition, much of the criminal violence the mostly poor suffer from is related to loss of control and regulation over these industries.
All of these crimes have been committed by the clergy and believers, by presidents and politicians, by judges and juries, by doctors and lawyers, by athletes and fans, by husbands and wives, by parents and children, by police and criminals, by young and old, by men and women, by officers and enlisted, and by Americans and foreigners since the beginning of time. It's time to recognize that these should no longer be treated as criminal actions. I'm sure Presidents Bush and Clinton wouldn't want themselves or their family members jailed with a felony conviction on their record, and it's hypocrisy to demand that others be punished for crimes they committed "while having some fun," even if you personally disapprove of the behavior.
Through regulation, the quality and availability of recreational drugs can be much better controlled. Overdosing and poisonings due to poor quality control would be reduced, and all sales would be taxed. AIDS and other diseases would be less likely to spread if drug users and prostitutes were not forced into an underground culture. New AIDS infections have hit record highs in 2004, showing that the epidemic is far from being addressed by public health officials or law enforcement.
Furthermore, education campaigns describing the harm such drugs, prostitution and gambling can have for heavy users will be much more effective if distribution is better controlled and people can believe the education is real and not just law enforcement propaganda. People could seek medical care more easily because they would not have to admit to committing a crime in order to seek treatment. Children sell drugs primarily to avoid long sentences, and kids tend to sell to other kids because that's who they associate with. Columbia, Afghanistan and other countries that are a source of narcotics tend to abuse peasants and children and finance renegade militants because the drug trade is illicit instead of being legitimate.
Most youthful prostitution arises because children are easily victimized. Sexual urges would be much better satisfied by providing a safer, taxed environment in which both adult patrons and prostitutes could receive better medical attention and education, and the danger to women from violent men would be dramatically reduced.
Gambling is an oddity because most states operate many gambling games in their Lotto lines, and many other states have gambling available through Indian tribal casinos. And there's always Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Horse racing occurs in many states, and sports have always been a focus of gamblers, including office pools. Rather than fighting the urge to gamble, gambling should be legalized and regulated to ensure fair games and fair payouts. Again, gambling activities would be taxed like all other sales, allowing people to decide how they want to spend their money.
All such behavior is desirable by some and abhorred by others. Variations in tastes are natural, and those who do not want to partake should certainly avoid them. Would you shoot heroin just because it was legal? Would you hire a prostitute or start gambling just because it was legal? Wise people avoid certain behaviors because of the risks and moral issues that they face with pride, character and a sense of doing the right thing, not because they are illegal. Yet many continue to partake in these activities, and many others are sucked into the underworld by thugs and the lure of tax free riches, despite they're being illegal. Making it illegal isn't the answer.
Education campaigns should focus on the issues that surround people who fall victim to bad choices and excesses. But not all users or gamblers are troubled. Use is not always abuse. And abuse needs medical and psychological treatment, not criminal convictions. It simply costs more to incarcerate than to treat those cases in which users have become abusers.
But having a taste for prostitution, gambling or recreational drugs does not alleviate participants from their responsibilities. For example, committing a crime while under the influence of recreational drugs (including alcohol) should immediately double the penalty normally associated with the crime. Failure to pay child support or otherwise pay your bills because of excessive gambling losses should be criminal. The illegal sale of tobacco, alcohol and recreational drugs should be considered a very serious offense, not just resulting a fine and possible revocation of any license, but also in criminal penalties that result in community service and possibly jail time for more serious offenses. The use of child prostitutes or sale of recreational drugs to children should also carry a multiplier effect to the standard law regarding the mishandling of controlled and licensed activities.
In the end, by keeping these activities illegal, the activities continue without any regulatory oversight, those who seek treatment are subject to arrest, no tax dollars are collected, children are abused more frequently, crime and violence grow, police efforts are misdirected away from crimes with unwilling victims, and the money that flows increases the coffers of gangs, foreign militias and perhaps even terrorist organizations, honest jobs that pay much less are made less attractive, and general respect for law enforcement goes down. Freedom with regulation resolves these issues that are far more harmful than the effects on society caused by those who participate in thse activities.
There is certainly a benefit to licensing and certifying certain individuals in areas of national security and general safety. However, these systems have been used to create monopolies that preclude many practitioners from offering competitive services. This not only increases the costs for acquiring the services by those who wish to pay less, but it also reduces the ability of poorer people from entering trades that otherwise require a large investment of money (for schooling and certification) instead of time and effort (from mentoring and apprenticeship).
For example, licensing for regulated industries should remain, but the fees should be reasonable to cover the costs of regulating and supervising the activity, but not any higher. For example, because liquor is a controlled substance, a business should be required to get a license and pass a test indicating they understand the law and regulations that surround that activity. The license fee should otherwise be granted to any person who can pass the test, doesn't have a record that indicates they'll fail to heed the regulations surrounding the business, and will subject themselves to random compliance inspections. The fee for the license must be sufficient to allow for the tests and inspections to take place.
Certification, in conjunction with licensing, such as medical doctors, lawyers and others, should no longer be allowed to create a monopoly for the trade. Instead, all practitioners should be licensed, and therefore pass a reasonable test that shows they understand their trade and the laws that surround them, but certification beyond that should simply allow one practitioner to claim some potential superiority over a non-certified practitioner.
The free markets should decide whether people prefer to use a certified professional versus an uncertified provider. A certified public account may be preferable to some, but others may find it sufficient to use a non-certified accountant.
Many certifications are created in the name of safety, but they more often are used to keep out competition. In the medical field, for example, many tradesmen/apprentices could learn how to treat limited conditions. A tradesman clearly could learn how to give injections, do many medical diagnostic tests, clean teeth, assist in childbirth, dispensing medicine according prescriptions, etc. In law, an apprentice-trained lawyer certainly could create wills, deal in real estate transactions, press lawsuits, etc.
The notion of preventing low quality services is noble, but it's also unfair to those who have less money. Just as we may agree that a Mercedes is a better car than a Yugo, it is not right that only Mercedes should be available in the marketplace. The reality is that many people cannot afford the best, and rather than making it all or nothing, allow them to choose among licensed practitioners and, if desired, they can purchased from certified or non-certified professionals. A long lost tradition of learning a trade from an experienced professional and then later going into business has been lost. You cannot become a dentist by working for 10 years with a dentist, yet such hands-on learning is invaluable and allows those who are capable of doing the job but cannot afford the traditional medical schooling and certification route to become practitioners.
Therefore, certification-based monopolies not only harm the poor who must afford the best rather than good enough, but it also harms the poor who cannot engage in trades that they are capable of learning through mentoring without taking an expensive route that's enforced by certification-based monopolies.
Environmental concerns are extremely broad, but the Age of Light tells us that we need to care for the planet on a global basis. This means we need to cooperate with the world and businesses to ensure a balance in the consumption of our limited resources with our need for clean air and water, natural spaces for parks and animals, protection of rivers and forests, and in general, trying to reduce the pressures exerted by growing populations and growing appetites for western style living, consumption and waste.
Like tort reforms, environment concerns do need some balance. Farmers who are halted because of an eagle's nest or a rare vole is found is a poor use of exerting our environmental muscles. While consensus is unlikely, scientists and environmentalists need to work together to determine what the gravest threats are and then propose solutions to those threats. There is a point of diminishing returns, and by focusing on the gravest threats, we'll naturally move from one issue to another as the grave threat is no longer as grave as another threat. Armed with real information and recommendations, people can make intelligent choices regarding their futures and use the power of government to implement those solutions.
But like the war on terror, the environment requires a global perspective and global cooperation. The U.S. should certainly work immediately to resolve its local environment issues, but it must also work to provide aid or other information necessary to allow other countries to reach similar conclusions. And lastly, the U.S. must accept some globally recognized treaties and must no longer believe that it can preach one message to others while doing the exact opposite for itself.
The Age of Light must be nurtured by freedom-loving people who are not afraid of themselves and their neighbors, but instead learn to appreciate the diverse tastes, cultures and customs of those who share this small planet, surrounding a plain star, in a small galaxy among billions of others.
God showed us heaven, and it is here on Earth. It was called the Garden of Eden, where nakedness wasn't a sin and everyone and everything got along despite their differences. The sin was in believing we humans are God-like and foolishly thinking we could easily know enough to judge others based on our limited understanding. The Taliban, McCarthy, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Osama, even the long-gone Catholic Inquisition and a litany of others through time all knew the best, and all claimed in no uncertain terms that the world would be better if everyone did as they judged best. They used fear and violence instead of persuasive intellects, compelling ideas, thoughtful discussions, proof through reason, allowing that others may enjoy life differently, and that goodness was found in the mean and not in the extremes.
The Light Party cannot be found among the Democratic or Republican parties. It is unfortunate, but those two parties are like aging old warriors, going to battle to protect their turf and feed those loyal to powerful men. They no longer concern themselves with the reality of how to work towards a better world. They are compelled by the status quo, by the money that flows to ensure the donors' desires, by pork barrel politics and the desire for re-election. But a democracy doesn't have to suffer under a two party system that no longer represents the people, that either believes corporations are the answer to all problems while continuing to grow government spending with lowered taxes, or believes that governments are designed to take care of its people by providing all services in equally dismal ways by increasing taxes on whatever group is considered to be out of favor.
Don't just vote for the good looking person or the one who is charismatic or the one uses fear to increase violence and reduce liberties. Hitler had charisma. Osama and the Taliban use fear to increase violence and reduce liberties. America's greatness was that its people left the status quo and risked their lives for liberty. American needs to set the standard for what fairness, equality and justice are all about.