It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Let's talk Solutions...

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:12 PM
We're overloaded with crisis and corruption so much that it's hard to focus on anything of hope. I have 3 choice examples of solutions, and I'm hoping to hear more.

My current top 3 are: (1) Check boxes on our tax forms enabling us to actually choose which programs, initiatives and facets of war we're willing to fund, (2) Electronic Direct Democracy, and (3) congress critters have to wear logos on their suits representing the groups & corporations that they work for.

#1: Tax Form Check Boxes:

They often say "vote with your pocketbook". I say lets take that concept to the extreme. Imagine if on your IRS form instead of focusing on the check-boxes of 'dependents' you claim, the majority of the ordeal would be a compendium of all of the various things government does, and taxes us for.

Think about that: EVERYTHING the government does and taxes us for. The form would be more like a book. In the reality of the situation, there would be so much that people would only have time to flip through trying to find things they actually support.

From there I propose that there be a 1-10 system. Like the form has a column that states the total intended price tag, and then the next column shows how much would cost each individual under the government vision. From there you get a base-10 percentage option of how much of their intended price you actually support.

I argue that this alone would solve pretty much everything. In fact, it would almost negate the need for congress critters and the office of the president, especially as we know it.

Although I detest 'emotional wedge issues', I do often point out how it's unfair that people who don't support abortion are forced to pay for abortion related programs. If it were the other way around, and abortion were outlawed, should avid abortion supporters be forced to pay for anti-abortion programs? Considering this concept again recently brought me to the conclusion of this case point.

Imagine all of the issues. Now imagine all of those who avidly support them, and nastily don't. One example: millions of people are rightfully obsessed with having a new 9/11 investigation. Let them! Let them opt to pay for it, or ignore it. Or consider Global Warming. Vast amounts of government funding goes towards things related to that issue. Hey, if people want to pay for such things, let them. But don't force everyone else to. If people didn't have to be taxed to death in relation to things they don't support, what damage would it do for others to do so?

#2: Electronic Direct Democracy:

This system Could either function on its own, or be heavily supplementary to the system i proposed above. The idea is that you have an ongoing voting system where people can log in to the system via their computers and / or TV sets, and vote for issues, basically in place of the congress critters who we "elect" to "represent" us.

This concept isn't new. The key to such a system is having realistic and dramatic safeguards to prevent 'voter fraud' in this context. Considering the trillions of dollars spent on everything by government every year the right solutions MUST BE possible.

The need for such a system is apparent, as people can vote themselves on issues at the state level, but not the federal level. All while the federal government has vastly more things they're up to compared to any individual state government.

#3: Logos on Congress Suits:

I read this idea semi-recently posted by another member of ATS. It's pretty straight forward: congress critters have to have logos all over their suits much similar to how Nascar drivers have all of their sponsors all over their uniforms and vehicles.

If everyone could see this every time they look at government officials, instead of just a huge backdrop of 'patriotic" US flags, this itself would change things dramatically.

I look forward to any critique of these ideas, and any other broad ideas that would fit in here...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:48 PM
They are excellent ideas. The first idea is the best and it allows the people to shape the country as they see fit, which is awesome

The only problems I see are - well, the same problems we have now really:

Coercion - Say that people are funding public education and health care but the governments wants more money for the military, what are they going to do? They will probably over-exaggerate an external threat possibly followed by a false flag in order to 'force' the populace to support defense.

Corruption - These suggestions leave the government open to corruption. How will we know that the boxes which we tick are the ones that the funding goes to? How will we know that the popular vote taken on the internet is the one the government implements? All we can do is trust the government - however their track-record is poor.

In saying that though it will probably work a lot better than we have now.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:52 PM
Hell ya, I like all three!


they will all need to get big and house like to fit all those blasted things on


LOOOOOOOONNNNGGG capes with the Sponsor patches affixed to them

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Janky Red]

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

tax reform:

End taxes entirely, along with the bloated ridiculous criminal crony government programs that they pay for.

electronic democracy:

I initially liked this idea until I looked at all the challenges involved. There is just too much room for fraud. Way too much. A paper system is the only way to ensure a clean audit of the votes can be done.

Logos on politicians.

I like it.

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The problem with solutions is that they are not answers and are only methods by which to obtain answers. If the solution used generates the correct answer and can repeatedly do so, it is a worthy method of arriving at answers, if solutions do not arrive at correct answers, then the solutions are useless.

If we are to find answers to our problems we must first understand the questions. The questions you bring up are crisis and corruption. The question of crisis is a perpetual one as crisis' will happen regardless of how much effort is placed in preventing them. This is not to say that efforts at preventing crisis' shouldn't be made, and the ability to predict the outcome of any given action is a necessary tool for all people.

Let us, for the moment, put crisis management aside and first address corruption and the solutions you offered to answer the question of corruption. The first solution you offer is:

Tax Form Check Boxes:

Before addressing this, it should be said that taxes are necessary to keep the slow and cumbersome wheels of government moving. However, taxation is also the greatest source of government corruption and when that government is able to tax with impunity, the corruption that follows is easily predicted.

The Constitution for the United States of America grants Congress the complete and plenary power of taxation for the federal government. Some would argue, as mnemeth1 has, that this power to tax should not even exist. Indeed, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that document that preceded The Constitution did not grant any national government power to tax, and the national government was beholden to the states for any funding. The states were not so willing to fund the national government and in many ways this reticence to fund the national government was what led to the creation of The Constitution for the United States.

Because The United States of America was in deep debt due to the Revolution for American Independence, taxation was arguably a necessity, so the Constitution granted Congress the power of taxation, but not with impunity. The principles of Constitutional taxation impose a few rules on Congress' ability to tax. Congress may not levy any taxes on any articles exported from any state, (Article I, Section 9, Clause 5), and while Congress certainly has been granted the power to collect taxes in the form of duties, imposts, and excises, these indirect forms of taxation must remain uniform throughout the United States, (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) and finally, no capitation or other direct tax can be laid unless it is apportioned according to the census of enumeration mandated by Constitution, (Article I, Section 9, Clause 4).

I bring up these rule, or regulations of taxation imposed upon Congress to address your solution of a line item veto or approval of policy made directly by the people. The tax form you speak of would be the tax return in regards to income taxation, and while you are suggesting that the wisdom of the people is a solution in reigning in out of control government spending, it should be noted that the vast majority of "taxpayers", (a specifically defined term within the tax code), do not even know if this so called "personal income tax" is a direct tax on property or an indirect tax on some sort of activity.

What is the subject of the "income tax"? Is it a capitation tax or other direct tax, or is it an indirect tax on some sort of activity? If people do not even know the answer to this, then what makes you think they know would know the answers to the check box questions you would have placed on a tax return?

It should be clear that because of the passage of the 16th Amendment that the "income tax" is not apportioned among the several states according to any census of enumeration, and certainly not a capitation tax. However, too many people have erroneously assumed that the 16th Amendment "relieved" Congress of the rule of apportionment in regards to income taxation. The SCOTUS has consistently ruled otherwise, beginning with two seminal rulings in both the Brushaber and Stanton rulings, yet the vast majority of people have accepted the false claim that the income tax is a direct tax on income not subject to the rule of apportionment. It is just not true and the SCOTUS continues to acknowledge the income tax that exists today in perpetuity, as an indirect tax on specific activities.

What activities have been named by the tax code? Herein lies the real question and whatever solutions one uses to arrive at the answer, if they are not taking the time to actually read the tax code, the solution becomes willful ignorance, and that is just not an answer. The reality of the tax code is it is a five volume set written in such a tautological nature that it is not a wild stretch of imagination to assume that it was written this way to purposely confuse and discourage the average person from understanding it. This is why the cottage industries of tax attorneys and tax accountants has flourished. Do you honestly believe that in the beginning of this Constitutional United States that people turned to tax attorneys and accountants to know if they were liable for a tax and if so how they must go about reporting their income in a lawful manner?

With the exception of a brief income tax passed during the Civil War in order to pay for that expense, income taxation was unheard of, and even the oppressive taxes imposed by Britain that sparked the Revolution of American Independence to begin with did not come in the form of an income tax. The perpetual income taxation of today was not even passed until 1913 which means it is not yet even 100 years old, yet for the 100 plus years that preceded that income tax, The United States was able to function and operate without placing this remarkably stupid burden of filing tax returns on the people. Since 1913, the corruption that has followed is legendary and has continued to fester and plague this nation like a cancer for close to 100 years.

Your solution of a line item veto or approval of federal policy by using the tax return as a method only embraces a repugnant form of taxation that has placed many Americans in the dubious position of offering up private information they should never have had to in order to continue funding the corruption of a federal government. The reality is that most people are not even liable for this so called "personal income tax", and yet, this statement will no doubt bring on furious debate where I will be called a liar, ignorant, and dangerous. I am not lying, nor am I ignorant and what is dangerous is to continue paying taxes people are not even liable for. Would you pay your landlord 13 or 14 months rent each year? Would you pay the grocer the price of two pounds of beef in exchange for one? Any person who would only invites corruption, and look what we have...unmitigated corruption. Big surprise!

The tragedy is that most people, when assuming that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to do what the Constitution expressly forbade is that people don't understand that Congress cannot simply change what all ready exists in the Constitution by Amendment, and yet, while this did not happen with the 16th Amendment, it certainly happened with the 17th Amendment and to the best of my knowledge, the 17th Amendment has never even been legally challenged.

The 17th Amendment also leads us to your next solution, that being a method of direct democracy through voting. Prior the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were not elected by the people to Congress but were instead chosen by each states legislature. This was, and rightfully so, viewed as an anti-democratic method. It was anti-democratic because our Founders were not so trusting of democracies, and understandably so.

Today, there are public school teacher, funded by taxes, who actually teach that the lynch pin of freedom is the ability to vote elected officials and will spend scant time teaching about the significance of The Bill of Rights and inalienable rights in general. Voting is not even a right, it is a privilege that comes with citizenship, but because the indoctrination has been so pervasive in teaching that voting is a right, today many people believe that rights only exists for the citizens who have been granted rights by the government they supposedly created. How stupidly ironic is that? On the one hand we are taught to believe that our Founders established a government in order to protect freedom, but accept that today this freedom only exists due to governments benign willingness to allow it.

A direct democracy would no more protect the rights of people than has our own government today, and there have been several polls since 9/11 that show that people are only to happy to give away freedom for the illusion of security, and when that illusion of security fades, the people don't spend too much time questioning their own sanity or why they were willing to be so delusional, and instead look for solutions that would somehow keep this delusion of security in place. The right to fight for ones delusions may be a right, but when that right is presented as a trump card that holds supremacy over all other rights, again, that corruption exists and remains entrenched should be no surprise.

Finally, there is your solution of logos. Government today is all ready circus like and adding to this bizarre circus by creating just another form of advertising for corporate clowns seems to be rather silly, and it is hard to understand precisely what it would accomplish other than a new form of advertising for big business.

These solutions do not bring correct answers, and we must first deny ignorance if we are to find those answers.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:29 AM
reply to posts by EVERYONE[/url]

Good point about coercion. But here's a possibility: If people aren't funding the CIA then they wont have the money to do such things...

But then corruption comes into play: People need to face prison time for corruption type activities and for putting out false agenda driven fearmonger reports to justify higher checkbox figures.

Obviously, institutions like the Federal Reserve and Wall Street (who controls the CIA and MIC) need to be turned upside down. Also things like multinational corporations having virtually the same rights as individual human beings. I guess I just took that all as inherent in my OP.

Janky, oh man the idea to make them wear capes... just to even fit all the logos was the best laugh I had all day

mnemeth, I've always been about the staunchest opponent of taxes... as we know them. I'm all for roads and such, and even cool state of the art fighter jets and stuff. But the part where we all pay to build Supercarriers and then deploy them worldwide to police the world, and then the cronies profit from that, I'm all against. And I argue that by eliminating corruption as we know it these things could fall into place.

The "electronic voting" system we use today is total rubbish, but it must be possible for a citizen enabled citizens decide the issues not some crony hacks, via readily available in home technologies. If there was a system where people could agree on how much is 'open' (regarding their voting history), and where people could verify their results easily, it could work. The alternative is "electing" (often electronically, always where nobody can verify their own vote) so-called "representatives" who go down to DC and cut themselves deals and get us all into this mess.

The most important thing is a system where a unanimous majority can agree on it, and a system where people feel like they're in control means a system that people will actually involve themselves in, which is currently what we perhaps need the most.

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:54 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Nice post

I really appreciate you spending the time to write all of that.

While I didn't mention it in my OP, I did mention it in my last post:
Key crucial is a system that people will agree on. If people can pick what they're willing to be taxed on, then they will agree. And if congress critters attempted to denounce this concept they'd be exposed as the crooks they are.

I realize that virtually every facet of the government as we know it is illegitimate and corrupt. The problem is we haven't been very effective and making a great enough impact in motivating people in light of this.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to actually fix things, and I've come to the conclusion that we'd need both concepts that would motivate people to involve themselves, combined with methods to dramatically limit the size of government. I think these set of ideas would cover them both very directly.

If people wont agree then not much will work.

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Congress should simply do away with the income tax, but of course, this will never happen. There is, however, a reason the so called "Personal Income Tax" is legal and that is because, as the IRS continually asserts, as well as the courts, it is a tax that is voluntary.

Of course, tax collectors will quibble and play games of semantics by what they mean by voluntary, and they will themselves voluntarily reject the oath of office they took in order to intimidate, bully and use force to coerce the people into "volunteering" to pay income tax.

While I have no doubt that you have spent considerable time attempting to find solutions to the problem of corruption, I have spent a great deal of time reading the tax code in an attempt to better understand it. What I have discovered is that there is no clear and identifiable section of the code that makes the vast majority of people liable for an income tax. Government employees are undeniably liable for the income tax, and of course, that breed of employee has grown considerably since the current income tax was passed, and also those who import or manufacture tobacco are undeniably liable as are those who distill or import alcohol and when reading the sections of the code that make these activities liable for income taxation are clear, concise and easy to understand. However, the reliance on 26 U.S.C. Section 1, as a method of making all other people liable for the income tax is outrageously disingenuous at best.

Even so, far too many people will insist that they are indeed liable for this odious tax, that has funded the empire building of a federal government and paid government officials more than most make in the private sector in order to piss all over private citizens. This is the problem. There is no statute or section of any code that clearly explains how most people were, if they were, made liable for the income tax. Failing any clear and concise language that undeniably makes a person liable for a tax, it is ridiculous that people are so willing to "voluntarily" assess their own liability, and I assure you, by filing a valid tax return a person is without a doubt voluntarily assessing their own liability.

As long as people are going to insist on paying taxes they, in all likelihood, do not owe, then the problem goes far deeper than corrupt elected officials. Cattle willingly graze the lands provided them before their inevitable slaughter, and this is what the people seem to want, to graze on lands not theirs, but their masters, in order to have a modicum of security before their inevitable slaughter. At least the bull in a bullfight shows courage and the spirit of individual power before being slaughtered, and there are times when a matador will be brought down by this remarkable spirit. Imagine of the entire species of bulls fought back, imagine what sort of sport that would be.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:54 PM
How disappointing! The day after I posted this thread, the top thread in flags / replies was this:

Wake up!! You are doing EXACTLY what is expected of you! Exactly what THEY want!

The premise was that the elites / etc want us all discussing the problems of the world. The solution proposed that got all of the jazz was that we should basically just shut up and stick our heads in the sand.

The solution that got 170 flags wasn't actual SOLUTIONS, instead it was fantasies about chasing butterflies over rainbows while riding unicorns.

ATS: I'm very disappointed in you. I wasn't even begging for flags, but I was begging for more ideas for how to fix the tyrannical mess we all face, and after less than 12 hours got neither.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As long as people are going to insist on paying taxes they, in all likelihood, do not owe, then the problem goes far deeper than corrupt elected officials.


So I say get rid of so-called elected officials!

I know quite well about the Constitution, etc. But in our short time together I'm pretty sure you're way more well rehearsed on such.

But in light of my little #1 concept here (if this has ever been proposed before someone please do let me know), I'm ready to change the entire system.

"Elected" officials are the root cause of our problems as far as I'm concerned. They supposedly voted in things like the 16th amendment, and the Federal Reserve Act. Citizens didn't vote for those things. They voted for some chumps that then served their own personal interests in whatever they got out of all that.

Today, these same sorts of crony lowlifes are the gatekeepers to shutting it all down, while causing immeasurable other problems. The libertarian / capitalist type arguments against socialism / communism being flawed because the concepts overlook human nature are correct. But they also fail to actually completely solve those same problems.

This is the 21st Century, and I'm ready for a real change. My concept wasn't even possible 200 years ago. Today it is. And this one is relevant unlike all of the bogus claims 'law makers' attempt to use to justify everything they do that circumvents the Bill of Rights etc.

Even if corruption were a non-issue about half of everyone (who actually votes) still lose: You "vote" for some (basically always establishment hacks)... oh but then you LOSE. Now that other douche is on Capital Hill voting for spending on things you likely won't agree with, and you'll be taxed for it.

And agreement is the biggest lesson I've learned about trying to affect massive social change. If people don't agree then you wont get too far in radical change. We NEED radical change, but it's hopeless in all that I've studied to find radical change that the overwhelming majority will agree upon. In fact, if most agree that a proposed change is still futile then they;'ll agree to go back to bad, America.

With my 'new' concept people who want certain things to happen can still pay for them to. It's like when you call the phone+internet+cable-tv company: you can choose just Internet, or everything if you're willing to pay for it.

Who couldn't agree on a system where we can still financially support the things we like, and not fund the things we don't?

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:21 AM
One criterion for good proposed solutions to problems is that they need to be realistic and attainable.

For example, let's propose that the solution to the world's economic problems is free energy. You could write me a book on all the reasons that would work, and it's still worthless unless free energy actually exists in a form that is obtainable by most or all people. (let's not go off on the free energy discussion, it's just an example.)

Your solution is not realistic nor attainable. Short of staging an armed coup and taking over the government, it isn't going to happen. THEY aren't going to let it happen, and lest you forgot THEY are still in control.

If 75% of Americans suddenly woke up, grew a pair, and refused to pay their taxes until the system is fixed, something *might* be accomplished. But that's not going to happen either.

Realistic solutions will have to begin with something that we can personally do as individuals, such as growing our own food, getting off the "grid," bartering within our communities to avoid income and sales taxes, trying to educate those around us who don't know what's going on, and so on..

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:57 AM

Originally posted by hhott
If 75% of Americans suddenly woke up, grew a pair, and refused to pay their taxes until the system is fixed, something *might* be accomplished. But that's not going to happen either.

People are waiting for a viable solution that most can agree on and all of those can believe in before they'll do anything.

Fight or flight.

I've searched for years trying to find the missing key, and this is the best I've ever seen out of anything out there. If anyone can correct me I'm all ears...

To say it isn't possible is to say we're hopelessly enslaved to the system pretty much how it is. Saying that ensures self-defeat. Period.

Realistic solutions will have to begin with something that we can personally do as individuals, such as growing our own food, getting off the "grid," bartering within our communities to avoid income and sales taxes, trying to educate those around us who don't know what's going on, and so on..

You have GREAT points there I wont dispute, except:

...trying to educate those around us who don't know what's going on...

We face brick walls when we don't have massive solutions (worth fighting for ) to offer as we try to show the way. Because of that, the potential this proposed solution offers is even more powerful than the solution itself.

I'm tired of griping. And everyone else is tired of hearing griping from those informed. It's time for solutions. It's time to move forward from all that we've all spent so much time researching.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:01 AM

I guess this thread is another example that most people on ATS don't care too much about trying to find actual solutions to the problems we face.

A real shame, there are a lot of great minds here.

"In Fight Club I see the greatest men who ever lived, and I see squander." -Tyler Durden

[edit on 14-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:41 AM
It is so simple really we need to talk to our neighbors again. This is the starting point communities need to be communities.

We also need to see the line between right and left is a lie. They want us divided. Honesty and integrity need to rule again. Children need to be disciplined and bad behavior needs to be dealt with instead of being swept under the rug. No more political correctness of any kind. The truth needs to rule the day.

If we solve these simple problems everything will fall in line. It starts in our own backyards.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:02 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I just reviewed you well worded posts...

Even if there weren't an income tax, Congress would still be able to do things we don't approve of, and we wouldn't be able to stop them via 'defunding'.

Just getting rid of income taxes...

...doesn't end the inherent The Iron Law of Oligarchy, states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.

...doesn't fight the disenfranchisement the masses feel in not really having much say in anything.

...doesn't motivate people to want to participate, and reach towards understanding all of the issues.

...doesn't end the occupations that leads to 9/11's and wars, based on promises by our 'elected' leaders that people feel irrational trust into merely because they voted for them.

...doesn't end the realities where people who FAIL, like on 9/11, aren't fired because the people in charge are there for x amount of years regardless because they were elected, and they're in charge of firing those below them (which doesn't seem to ever happen).

...doesn't end the power of special interest groups, who can go straight to the congress critters instead of trying to convince us with TV ads or whatever. At least if they can propagandize us, which already happens, we can still be exposed to the other side of the arguments, which don't seem to have any effect on the congress people.

...doesn't answer the reality where congress people are above the law. It's up to them to launch investigations into each other, not up to us. Even Dennis Kucinich wasn't able to sway the House to investigate Bush, merely because the rest of the Democrats had the strategy to let Bush keep on causing his damage, so they could put all of their energy into the 2008 election. (It worked)

...doesn't solve the problem of if we do vote, but then our guy loses, we're out. Half the people always lose every election.

...doesn't allow people to fund things they believe in, which would help motivate them to care about pressing the issue.

Consider that NOONE likes paying taxes, and by now most people have heard that income taxes are a fraud, yet what has been done? How close have we come to fixing it??

Don't forget, that 200 years ago most people still didn't even know how to read. Today we have the Internet. It's just a matter of showing people the truth, instead of the distortions, hype and lies.

I also realize the pitfalls of the traditional idea of direct democracy: MOB RULE. The premise of mob rule is that the mob rules, not the law. The rule of law has obviously failed, because we have a form of direct democracy, where those with the most power RULE, and all they have to do is keep the masses divided over supporting the policy etc. The Rule of Law isn't properly enough defined by the Constitution, as proven by our situation. And when it comes to the 'dumb' masses, I doubt they would have ratified the 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve Act, and so on. Now that that's all most of us have known our entire lives, its no wonder they roll their eyes when we say its wrong and illegitimate.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:24 AM
I've tried to address this issue in many previous posts, but the "solution" does not come from reforms or laws. Those are temporary fixes that don't confront the root causes of them problems themselves.

Please read through my post in the signature. It is the only tangible and true solution I have yet head of.

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by chrisrand

I appreaciate you're interests in finding solutions.

But I cannot support that idea

I'm all too familiar with where that idea came from, and it didn't originate with Jacques Fresco:
The Zeitgeist Movement is *Pure Communism*

I did learn something debating with Zeitgeist Movement / Venus Project (ZP) people tho:
A realistic social movement NEEDS massive agreement. I begged and begged in another thread for how it's all supposed to work. Their answer: "thru agreement".
But guess what: I don't agree! Therefore it can't work (that economic system truly can't work when half the people don't agree, and will continue to trade).

But I think here I've found a solution that we can mostly all agree on, and can still do at least as much to fix the same problems, without the potential pitfalls of... *pure* communism.

For one thing, trying to transform the economic system at the same time transforming the political system is dangerously overambitious, and not tried since... the last communist revolution. The fact is you will NEVER get everyone out there to agree to that economic system. Without cronyism, and things like mutlinational corporations having the same rights as human beings, and fiat central banksters raping everyone, the economic system is the best thing for humanity.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

top topics


log in