Easy way to end the NWO

Every month all people in a country cast a ballot, This ballot has a name of a person they think is no longer deserving to hold power. The ballets are counted locally and a top 10 names is taken from that vote announced and confirmed by many people, The votes of all areas are figured together by grouping all the open coverage of each announcement. Lots of cameras and oversight.

The top 50 people on the list have all assets, and money taken away from them by the government. They are given an apartment a car, and a job as a greeter at Walmart. They are not allowed to leave country for 5 years or accept gifts of money over 2000 a month from others. After 5 years they can leave the country if they want but they do not get assets back ever.

OK this system would make sure no public official, news caster or banker would want to be exposed as being bad to the people. Make it world wide, poof the power of the elite goes underground or hides.

If a guy found he was 70th on list last vote, boy would he start changing his song and dance.

Only people who do not have lots of assets and money would want public office, they would be there to serve, not risk losing all their money. Presto chango America is changed.

edited for clarity as requested by poster below

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Redge777]

Doesn't anyone see the simplicity of this idea? wouldn't it work?

I've read and re-read your post a couple times and I guess I'm just not clear on what it is you're proposing. What would the ballot be for? How would this eliminate a "NWO"? elaborate please because to me, your post isn't making much sense. But the idea of discussing ways to avoid or eliminate a NWO is a great idea.

Redge....I hear ya loud and clear

This is but one of many systems which MIGHT work...

I really love how you've focused on the positives and the good in people...

But let's face it, when you consider a system like yours, you really have to take into account the worst in people and deal with it...

That, IMO is the weakness in your system

But, eh...Thanks for posting it anyways Its a lot better than many post on here

Peace

reply to post by cynical572


Think outside the box, the idea is out there. Imagine if people every month had a special vote, That vote was to remove, wealth and power from people who had shown, to most people, an abuse of it.

So people see a congressmen not doing good, he gets removed and sent to wallmart as the greeter at the door.

Every month the top badest people have their wealth and power removed, being bad is based on the vote of the people.

Sure there would be attempts at corupting the system, but you catch them vote them out, they then are at Wallmart and can't corrupt the system. Their power(money) is recovered and given to the government.

If you can't understand it you are not breaking traditional modes of thought. Ok CEO so and so is greedy and bad, the people fire him. Send him for 5 years as a greeter at Wallmart to meet a few common people, after the 5 years, if someone wants to hire him back thats fine.

Wait, so we're going to allow a popular vote to force particular people into jobs because we don't like them?

Wow, thats certainly helpful to the cause of freedom. I propose Redge go work as a bagger at Walmart for 5 years, because I don't like his idea. And I'll get all my friends in the media to do nasty writeups of him, in order to get the popular vote.

I thought freedom had something to do with non-coercion, so long as you harmed nobody...but obviously I was wrong. It means making life hell for people you don't like. Then again, I was probably being stupid and reading too much John Stuart Mill again.

reply to post by Kaliayev


So you don't believe in prison either? I am saying that if a person is decided to have miss used his power or wealth he is given a 5 year sentance as a WallMart Greeter.

As far as media used to make a person look bad, well we already got that, but the one we got gets 1000s killed, so sending a few wealthy people to a stint as a bagger is not that bad an idea in my book.

Besides, If people see media campaining to pick a person, whoops guess who goes next, the reporters and the people running the media.

Originally posted by Kaliayev


I thought freedom had something to do with non-coercion, so long as you harmed nobody...but obviously I was wrong.

Its not about not liking them, its not wanting them to have power to continue what they are doing, although someone doing things people don't want them to do, is often not liked.

And if freedom is non-coercion then you must think economic factors like knowing your kids will starve if you speak up is not coercion. Just because it comes from an economic system does not make it less coercive, it is only not noticed, because that is what you are taught is the way things work.

And if someone is not liked, why not send them to an average job, I am sure if the few elite didn't like someone they would take away his good job. Why not give that same power to the citizens? How many 9/11 truthers got fired after speaking. How many people agree to do things under threat of getting fired, whats the difference. I will tell you the difference who has the power.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Redge777]

So what you are saying is because someone else did it, its alright for you to do it as well? Even though they were obviously wrong?

OK then, thanks for clearing that up.

Well, besides being anti-capitalist and essentially immoral, I could see it quickly becoming a popularity contest. I mean, how long do you think it would take until Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are on that list? Lol.

Another aspect would be how do you reallocate the money? All that money flowing into the pockets of the government would create quite a few chances for abuse, such as blackops and other questionable acts. Maybe create a world space program and give all of the money gained from these elections to the cause of exploring our solar system and/or galaxy?

-Warlo

reply to post by Warlo


If the idea is bad because money going to the government causes problems, lets get rid of taxes. I mean we have found ways to handle income inflow before, lower taxes, or increase spending.

And celebrities would be an issue, they would have to be real carefull to make sure they were not seen as improperly, in the eyes of most people, using their fame and fortune.

And far as being anti capitalistic, how is that a logical arguement? What does that have to do with the direction or an idea that could help solve a problem?

And far as being anti capitalistic, how is that a logical arguement? What does that have to do with the direction or an idea that could help solve a problem?

Well, the US economy, along with others, is based on capitalism and the idea that the common man can become a millionaire.

Hypothetically, let's say a person works for a large portion of his life building up a nice stash of cash and a nice stock portfolio, the gets wrongly accused of a crime, or says something without thinking it through first (cough, GW) and ends up on the list and loses his/her life's work in an instant.

That could possibly cause a "millionaire scare" where people are little afraid to spend time making tons of money because they know it can be taken away at anytime over mistakes they may make. To err is human, or so I've been told.

Right direction, but there's probably a better solution.

-Warlo

Well, the United States economy is going to crash and I would hate to be the big guy at the stock market with all my pennies in the pot. The Amero cannot be introduced until they completely cripple our economy as we know it. Famous last words as president George Bush sr. "New World Order Is Coming and there is Nothing You Can Do To Stop It!" The master plan is well outlined and it looks like if your in opposition of the transition to New World Order as I am we really need to do something as a nation fast because the eve of the noticeable transition is upon us. The "Freemasons" is an evil and powerful secret society supposedly and I think its odd that nearly every president since the beginning of the 20th century has been a "Freemason" although it dates even farther back than that. I would really like to know who the "Illuminati" is, thats the fella(s) calling the shots. My guess is that the illuminati is the power behind the world banks, who are pushing the "New World Order!"Dave

Originally posted by Kaliayev
So what you are saying is because someone else did it, its alright for you to do it as well? Even though they were obviously wrong?

OK then, thanks for clearing that up.

No I am saying that if someone works against the interest of society as dictated by the vote of the people of that society the society should be protected from them by removing their power. In our society money is power. I see no logic disjuct here, I am only using the social contract to protect people in society.

I am not sure who you mean was obviously wrong. If it is something done in the USA and it is obviously wrong it should be stopped. I believe giving people power to stop abuse of power would go along way to stop this.

I am not speaking of me doing anything, I am speaking of the will of the people.

Originally posted by Warlo
Well, the US economy, along with others, is based on capitalism and the idea that the common man can become a millionaire.

Hypothetically, let's say a person works for a large portion of his life building up a nice stash of cash and a nice stock portfolio, the gets wrongly accused of a crime, or says something without thinking it through first (cough, GW) and ends up on the list and loses his/her life's work in an instant.

Well are economy is based on capitalism, and our political system is will of the people. Which one trumps which. And people can be milllionairs, just don't go around stepping on to many people on your way up.

Unfortunately it happens sometimes that innocent people get wrongly punished, I agree this can happen, but no system is perfect. statistically there would not be that many wrong since only lets say a couple hundred a year get tapped for Walmart Greater. Far fewer miscarriages of justice then people in prison. If we are concerned about peoples lives being ruined wrongly lets start at prisons and not worry about the very small few in this new system.

Well if he has shown in the past honorable actions people will let him slide with a small mistake. But honestly if he does something bad enough to upset millions of people, that is Millions of people. Something should be done. Don't you agree?

That could possibly cause a "millionaire scare" where people are little afraid to spend time making tons of money because they know it can be taken away at anytime over mistakes they may make. To err is human, or so I've been told.

Some might, which would mean money would spread around more, I think that is more advantages for society. People would be cautious. Would it help if they had to be on the list two months in a row, give them a few days to try and make amends, I could see that as possible.

Right direction, but there's probably a better solution.

No No No, not going to let you do that. What is the better solution, and if the one I offer is better then the current then it should be implemented quickly. I still do not see a logical arguement short of things that already go wrong.

Originally posted by Redge777
Doesn't anyone see the simplicity of this idea? wouldn't it work?

Have you ever read "The Crucible"? You know...the Salem Witch Trials? That's what you are proposing and you make me sick. Grow-up.

Not at all, the salem which trials were actually Judges that promoted their agenda, they also threatened people to get them to name others. They also killed the people, I only offer them the opportunity to partake in one of the many jobs they make available to others, and the thrill of a pay check to pay check existence.

Why does it make you sick? Why does the society making a decision on who has power bother you? Is it any different then lets say 200 people making a decision on where 100,000 soldiers might go? Isn't currently the lives of Americans being decided by a few very rich people? Why not have the people decide who holds that power.

If you are worried about mob rule, and the sways of the passions of the masses you have a valid point, although I don't think you were exactly stating this.

So we can make it representative, 40 people give their vote card to one, that one goes to a meeting where only people with 40 vote cards can go. They then in republic fashion choose who they think should represent them. Now there is one representative for lets say the 500 people in the 40 group meeting. That one person represents 20000 people, they cast there vote for people on TV. If the 20,000 representative is corrupt, they might get sent to Walmart, so they will try and uphold the will of their people. Smaller state wide systems could be used on a state to state basis to maintain federal/state balance of power.

Nobody is allowed to handle a vote card of someone elses, so people can't form a group to collect them, if you want to represent 40, you have to find 40 people yourself to agree you follow there ideals. This promotes people discussing their beliefs with other and stimulates conversation.

Your only argument is it is OK for the current system of today a few people dictating the rules to the many, yet do not believe the reverse. Maybe you know your actions go against the will of the many. But more likely you think the many do not have the maturity to be allowed to take power from those that show they do not deserve it.

As far as growing up, what part of my argument is immature, if it is implementation explain where that fails, if it is moral right explain your argument. Please let me know where it is wrong. I find it convenient that you retreat into your mind to find a label that keeps you from actually thinking of the merits of my argument. It protects you from facing the errors in your self appointed feelings of superiority over others. It is also a label that has been conditioned into a group of society that claims the right to have power over others, I always enjoy triggering a knee jerk conditioned response. Now break, or justify the conditioning with a logical argument.

I wonder if your defence mechanisms stopped you from even reading my last paragraph, protect your world view, do not face the truth of what you advocate and your existence.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Redge777]