Limiting the "rights" of the few to ensure the rights of many.

a reply to: DBCowboy

"rights" is in quotations. I don't actually believe in denying anyone life, liberty, or happiness.

I believe in denying corporations actions that cause a worse environment for all citizens. Things are already in place that do this to an extent, work weeks, no child labor, and such. I simply believe in expanding on such things.

The water powered car was up and running, safely, 14 years ago. I was still in school and it was major news. Since then, I've heard the patent was bought, and no one can create said vehicles. This, to me, should not be a "right"

Just one example.

I believe the Constitution applies to everyone, and that everyone should be able to seek life, liberty and happiness. I also believe the actions of the minority interfere with those pursuits in unacceptable ways.

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I don't want to make the rules! I want the majority to make the rules, rather than the minority.

1 million people should weigh in ( if they so desire) on how they live. Not a few hundred deciding how they live.

Tell me what's so evil about that?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I don't want to make the rules! I want the majority to make the rules, rather than the minority.

1 million people should weigh in ( if they so desire) on how they live. Not a few hundred deciding how they live.

Tell me what's so evil about that?

I know, iam just telling you, no matter how few, or how many that makes the rules, they will be dictactors over the rest - and that is the flaw in your plan, that destroys your intention - most people dont like to be ruled over, and wants to be free, they will ALWAYS rebel

No matter how good and perfekt some rules seems to be, they will always be just that, rules

How about agreements instead?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I believe in the pursuit of life liberty and happiness.
I believe in a fair market.
I believe ideas cannot be owned by one cooperation.
I believe anything that interferes heavily with the pursuit of life, liberty, or happiness should be deemed as detrimental by the majority, and changed to benefit all.

Currently, there's the top percent that have good lives because of making others terrible.

In example, importing goods from countries who have child slavery.

Basically I believe in less laws, not more.

There should be fewer to no laws concerning patents, for instance.

I don't believe in creating more and more regulations, just deleting laws that serve greed. Such as being able to buy patents and throw them under the table to ensure better profit margins of your own company.

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

So you believe in anarchy? I've considered anarchy could work, though it raises a lot of questions, since I am not well versed in it.

What happens to a thief? A killer? A rapist?

Whatever the people want?

Or is there something like police? Which is a form of authority, therefore no longer anarchy.

a reply to: Astyanax

The minority I'm talking about is the billionaires and the politicians, these people are evil in my opinion, and should be shut down in some way or another.

I see what you're saying about minorities in ethnicity and religion, though. I cannot give a good answer, but I know the current government, and the people with money and power, suppress the majority, including these ethnic minorities.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

So you believe in anarchy? I've considered anarchy could work, though it raises a lot of questions, since I am not well versed in it.

What happens to a thief? A killer? A rapist?

Whatever the people want?

Or is there something like police? Which is a form of authority, therefore no longer anarchy.

No, i dont believe in anarchy or any other systems

Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people or a single person which does not recognize authority

Sounds like the 1 procenters, right?

I believe that EVERYONE has the right to do whatever the like - and thats really the only "rule"/"law" you need
If your stealing/killing/raping someone, your taking their free will from them.
people should agree on what to do with people that takes their freedom, so you might be punished differently from place to place - you decided yourself, what your rules are

Instead focus on how to remove the needs to do all these horrible things, if you dont need to steal, why do it?

Planned Obsolesence
What would happen if we stopped produce produkts designed to last 2 years? what would happen if we removed patents, so we could build the best equipment from the start? What would happen if we stopped building poor products, ònly so we can charge more for quality products? What would happen if you removed the need for commercials, (do you know how big an industry that is?) lawyers, politicans, people who works with economics or papers, all the workforce who doesnt actually produce anything usefull (most workers, look it up)
What would happen if you removed the needs for big pharmacy to earn money from sick people, and instead focusing on curing them? And what would happen when we only need to work for things we actually need, can share the workload because we dont have to worked ourself to death to survive?

Rules only serve one thing, the rulers

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Defining what "takes away freedom" are rules, laws, regulation. They are well intentioned and I agree with your statements of altruism, but enforcing such rules is done by someone, likely a minority as the majority aren't willing to step in to protect their way of life in my opinion.

As we a human, and flawed, corrupt, greedy, etc... No ideology will work perfectly.

My own ideology is an attempt to come to a compromise for a system in which is realistic.

Defining "free will" and the interference thereof is not a realistic process. People choose political parties, religions, and more because of the need for structure. Taking away structure, taking away rules and regulations would be anarchy. How would that be? I'm not sure. I'm not entirely against your train of thought, I agree with a lot of it, however I believe structure and strong definitions of laws and regulations would work better than a do-whatever until someone disagrees society.

We could sit here all day and come up with brilliant theories and solutions to all the world's problems.

The fact is, cream doesn't rise to the top....turds float. And EVERYONE with the money and the power to make any actual changes to how things are done are self-centered, greedy a$$holes. Always have been, always will be.

I like the idea of a maximum wage, not letting corporations use patents being used like pawns, flat tax, term limits, single payer healthcare system and/or universal set health costs ($5000 for a procedure one place, $20,000 for the same procedure somewhere else is BS, so is $30 for a prescription at one pharmacy and $150 for the same thing at another), I'm ALL FOR corporations actually having to pay their taxes instead of hiring lawyers to get around them, I think war is stupid, wasteful and pretty much antiquated at this point yet the machine keeps it going because of $$$... ah, the list could go on and on.

But the people who have the power to change any of this are making too much money off how things are. They would step on their own grandmothers to get a few dollars more.

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

ONE rule oughta cover it:
Do what you will, but harm none.

Unfortunately the 1%ers are sociopaths of Manson proportions.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Defining "harm" is where rules and regulations come in, as each person has their own definition of harm. Maybe it's not defined as harm to some for a drug to cost thousands of dollars, but to others it literally takes away their chance to live. Rules and regulations seem pretty necessary, as this thread is evermore pointing out ( in my own opinion )

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Defining what "takes away freedom" are rules, laws, regulation. They are well intentioned and I agree with your statements of altruism, but enforcing such rules is done by someone, likely a minority as the majority aren't willing to step in to protect their way of life in my opinion.

As we a human, and flawed, corrupt, greedy, etc... No ideology will work perfectly.

My own ideology is an attempt to come to a compromise for a system in which is realistic.

Defining "free will" and the interference thereof is not a realistic process. People choose political parties, religions, and more because of the need for structure. Taking away structure, taking away rules and regulations would be anarchy. How would that be? I'm not sure. I'm not entirely against your train of thought, I agree with a lot of it, however I believe structure and strong definitions of laws and regulations would work better than a do-whatever until someone disagrees society.

We would have to take responsibility ourself, we cant ask others to do it for us, but we can ask for help - how much help you would get, would depend on how people like you - no police should be forced to help someone they dont want to help

Things like police, would still be around, simply because we are so many people. and someone out there have passion for this kind of work. They wouldnt be enforcing laws. but investigate or protect people under attack, give you they evidence you need, to make YOUR case

I dont claim to have an answer, for a perfect system - iam just pointing out, with logic, why the systems we use now, doesnt and wont work (perfektly) ever!

We talk so much about how we all are equal, but in order for us all to be equal, we have to take responsibility for ALL things in our life, and people dont like it when they have to take out their own thrash. Thats why we have a system, to take care of all the things we dont like to do ourself - but in a hiarchy, there will always be someone in the top, and that means corruption. Thats why the system, dont take care of the responsibilities of the people, they make it worse, so the system is more needed - so we are actually making it harder for us self

I agree we dont get from A to Z in a day, we are all to biased of our way of living now, it will take time. But if you only changes the hiarchy, put more people in the top, we would still have corruption, and the system will eventuel fall

I applause you, for trying to come up with a better system, it is very much needed, but please try to take into account the points i made, cause thats the truth of it, if we ignore these truths, they will just come back to hunt us again, like the always have - it wont go away

a reply to: deadlyhope

In a perfect world that one rule would be all we would need and everyone would behave. Clearly we're not in a perfect world. The people running pharmaceutical companies don't care at all about easing suffering or ending diseases. That's why actual cures are suppressed and they would totally charge $200 per pill for blood pressure medicine if they could. That's why corporations not only DON'T donate their profits to charity, they find every loophole they can to not pay taxes, thereby leaving infrastructure, health care and housing for the poor and education in the lurch.

I wish we could all live by the honor system, but clearly we can't. Rules and Regulations are necessary. A very few, well worded, thorough laws/regulations would be ideal. But then we've got lawyers and politicians making a living off making MORE rules and regulations, not repealing the ones we don't really need.....and we're back to the 'greed is the root of all evil' point.

I'm getting dizzy on this circular argument.

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Can you give a historical example? I don't specifically disagree with what you are saying, there's a certain appeal to freedom in a more pure form, I just don't see it working for some people. I don't see people agreeing with enough things, I still see partisanship and arguments and debates and such, the desire for a perfect nation via what you are saying... I just don't see it being realistic, nor can I think of an example in history.

Want more freedom and choices for the consumers? Get rid of patents.
Want more money in the hands of the majority? Figure out how the minority are cheating and using the system against us and stomp on those actions.

I'm talking about our current system, and things that would help the current system. I believe with the right president, and the right actions, my ideas are semi realistic.

Completely turning into a different system and getting rid of all rules and coming up with one new rule that's meant to be broad and all encompassing.. I see the appeal, just not the realistic steps to completely transform into a type of society that I've never heard of in a real example.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

It goes back to my original post, does it not?

Limit the rich greedy people to ensure a better life for the majority.

Legislation requiring those pills to cost less is a lot more realistic than relying on an honor system.

Though I don't believe in pills at all personally. Garlic, fish oil, potassium, COq10 have been proven as effective for heart problems, and are a lot cheaper.

a reply to: deadlyhope
Right. But you're failing to take into consideration that the people who have the power to make these changes are precisely the greedy b*stards that are profiting by how things are set up now. There's no way in a million years they would ever do something against their own interests, even if it meant improving the lives of all 7 billion other mo fo's on the planet.

And you may choose to not believe in pills, but sometimes they do work and sometimes they are necessary. And I think that gouging prices of medication is pretty sick and low down. And even though pharmaceutical companies don't write laws directly, their lobbyists are naked in bed with our politicians...therefore the laws will always be in their favor.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Can you give a historical example? I don't specifically disagree with what you are saying, there's a certain appeal to freedom in a more pure form, I just don't see it working for some people. I don't see people agreeing with enough things, I still see partisanship and arguments and debates and such, the desire for a perfect nation via what you are saying... I just don't see it being realistic, nor can I think of an example in history.

Want more freedom and choices for the consumers? Get rid of patents.
Want more money in the hands of the majority? Figure out how the minority are cheating and using the system against us and stomp on those actions.

I'm talking about our current system, and things that would help the current system. I believe with the right president, and the right actions, my ideas are semi realistic.

Completely turning into a different system and getting rid of all rules and coming up with one new rule that's meant to be broad and all encompassing.. I see the appeal, just not the realistic steps to completely transform into a type of society that I've never heard of in a real example.

I cant think of any historical examples, sorry. I think there have always been rulers in known history
but there is some examples of societies living with no central leaders, like the thy camp in denmark Thy Camp - Wiki Everyone is welcome (as long as you dont wear any gang colours)
You can stay and live there, if they people allready living there like you, and if you help out with the daily duties and dont start problems - very simple rules, and this place have been around for over 40 years
Many people have heard about freetown christinia Freetown Christinia - wiki
These two places started out the same, thy camp 1 year before Christiania - the both where hippi inspired, and were supposed to be a free place for people to live, away from the tyranni of any goverment
But, they developed very differently. Christiania have an hiarchy, and is ruled by gangster and criminals - it is not a free place, and your not welcome to live there, unless you know somebody and are invited - there have been lots of trouble, shooting, fights and so on there, because it is runned by criminals (corruption) Thy camp is peacefull, Not even the bikers dare to make problems there, cause it is one united unit, and everybody is equal there.

The problems with laws and rules, are that people disagree on many things, so if we tell everyone they cant do something, because we others fear it, we have our first problem. NOONE should be jail for doing something with NO VICTIMS

So only make laws that protect the victims of crime

Money have NO VALUE, so exchange it with something with value, and dont make private banks print, loan us the money, (we loan our money, and have to pay rent, even though that would be money that doesnt exist!) change the rents as they see fit, and therebuy deciding what your money is worth from day to day.

So what if you earn doubble what you did 10 years ago, if the price of everything has trippled in that same timeframe...

So chance money to something with value, i propose paying people equally for their time - one hour of work, is worth one of of work - simple
If it is easier for people to understand, lets keep dollars, $1 is worth 1 minutte, $60 is worth an hour - what we have now, is just a big scam

Remove taxes, and all rights of companies - let people decided what they need, and are willing to pay for.
Let us instead pay everybody in a company an even share, no matter if they are cleaning people or chairman of the company - let everyone working there, get an even vote in the furture of the company

Just remove all the speciel rules, and no one can cheat anymore - if you want $60 dollar, you simply need to work for 60 minuttes, no more and no less

Keep it stupid/simple, thats my opinion

a reply to: deadlyhope
And this thought experiment can be applied to ANY system.

I used to be a police officer. Day after day I saw the illogical, inefficient and sometimes downright STUPID ways they did things. Me being me, I automatically tried to come up with solutions. I actually GOT IN TROUBLE once for daring to try to make a meeting with a (and I use the term loosely) superior. They didn't give a damn about anything actually working, or anyone's life actually improving, or any kind of system that worked. The chiefs of today were the losers that couldn't cut it on the streets yesterday. All they did was sit around and pull crap out of their butts to justify their own existence. Truly the top 1/3 of the department could be completely eliminated and the department would run BETTER, but they would never vote themselves out of a job. So instead they keep making up rules and regulations, even though the ones that were in place were either totally prudent and encompassing...or not being enforced anyway. But hey! Here's some more! Instead of trying to streamline, the whole mess was so convoluted Einstein himself couldn't have sifted through that crap.

Human nature. Gotta love it!

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I don't want to make the rules! I want the majority to make the rules, rather than the minority.

Really? The majority of the people in the United States don't own guns... so can the non-gun-owners limit the "rights" of those gun owners? Cause guns are limiting the "rights" of the majority to keep staying alive. It's a slippery slope you are suggesting. I'm going to guess that this isn't carte blanche statement you are making, and you just want to direct this thought-line towards only those things you agree with.

How can you believe in limiting someone's rights or happiness, then on the other hand be against that very thing.

You said:

"-No imports that are tagged as slave/child-labor, conflict-ridden, etc. If first world nations refused to buy from these people, better work conditions would be mandatory to trade. I'm not sure how this would be enforced and implemented, but this could cause better conditions across the globe."

Doesn't this apply to your logic? By limiting these individuals rights it guarantees your happiness. Think about it, someone somewhere working for pennies an hour, making clothes, electronics, what have you, is doing so to provide happiness to others while in misery.

Take the word rights out of it and put in the word happiness, you may see it differently.