Q: Why does society always control us yet says we're free?

[Winston]

Hi all,
Something's been bothering me lately.

Why is it that society is always trying to control us, make us conform to something and obligate us to become wage slaves, yet tells us that we are free and that this is a free country?

From the moment we are born, someone is always trying to constantly CONTROL us in some shape or form, and pressure us to CONFORM, whether it be parents, schools, governments, organizations and institutions, corporations we work for, spouses and family, society, etc. using guilt, condemnation and deprivation if we don't comply?

From the moment of birth, there is ALWAYS MASSIVE pressure on us to behave a certain way, follow strict rules and routines, conform to society and your environment, think within a certain box, and be slaves to others in some shape or form. This is true in every stage of life and wherever you go. You can't do what you want to do most of the time are are often forced to do things you don't want. And you are told WHAT to think and believe too, of course (e.g America is free, other countries are not, people are born to be workaholics, you are a loser if you don't have a wage slave job, dissenters are all losers, etc).

And if we don't comply then we face disciplinary measures, are put on guilt trips, and told that there is "something wrong" with us. The pressure to conform to something at every stage of your life is constant and neverending.

When you are born, you are under the total control, care and supervision of your parents. Ok that's necessary, since infants are not autonomous and need to be cared for. But once you enter school, a lifetime of slavery and conformity begin. You are forced to go to school and given no choice in it, where you have to do everything the teacher says, study, do homework, take notes, read stuff assigned, etc. Then when you get home, you are under the constant control of your parents and their strict rules that you have to conform to. When you get to college, you are probably the most free you will ever be, for you don't have to work full time yet, and you can choose your classes or just not go to them at all if you don't want.

(I never understood why so many people in college were in a rush to get out so they can start working, making money and become wage slaves to corporations, rather than just enjoy life, it was like they wanted to be slaves, ick).

Then after college you are forced to enter the world of work, which is basically a private dictatorship where you are a slave 8 or 9 or more hours per day, living under total conformity to your company and under pressure to perform well. It also ties you to one place geographically for the long term, even if you hate where you live. But you have to do this in order to make a living and pay your bills. If you don't, you'll be seen by society and your peers as a loser and degenerate bum, and also you are conditioned by society to feel incomplete, lacking and depressed without a job.

If you just stayed home with your parents and don't work, then you are seen as a total loser by society and your peers.

So again, you can't do whatever you want. There is social pressure to live up to a certain standard and lifestyle, and condemnation if you don't live up to it. If you don't conform to all this, you are told adamantly, "There's something WRONG with you!"

What's really sick is that we are basically conditioned to WANT to become wage slaves and live lives of conformity, obedience and slavery. Somehow we are duped into attaching our personal self-esteem, self-worth and pride to this system. And most people conform this. Few dare challenge it, lest they risk condemnation from their peers, family and society.

And of course, it's really hard to start your own business and be able to make a living from it. Few succeed at it, and even if you do, you still become a slave to your own business. You may own it, but it owns you too. Every possession you have owns you does in fact, for you have an attachment to it, as the Buddhists say.

Then, you are pressured to get married and start a family. And once you do, you have to conform to your spouse's needs and wishes, and that of your family's, after being a slave at work all day. So again, you are bound and can't do whatever you want.

Now, the establishment does their best to make you WANT to conform, to bring your will into alignment with theirs, so to speak. That's the ideal solution to them. But of course, sometimes they fail and that's why we have groups of counterculture hippies around the world. They are tolerated, as long as they don't cause any trouble to the establishment and its system.

If you are lucky, you get to retire with a residual income or pension or 401k or whatever. But the thing is, most people who are able to retire live in First World countries with good economies. Such countries tend to have workaholic cultures and are more into privacy and isolation in their homes, or small cliques. So retirees in such countries will have a hard time finding companionship as most people are busy being slaves to their jobs and families. They can go overseas to countries where there's more to do of course, but few dare to.

So you see, at every stage in life we are unduly pressured to conform, always controlled by others, obey society, become slaves to our jobs, etc. We can't do what we want most of the time.

But what's the point of life then, if you can't do whatever you want? Is being a slave all your life to others better or worse than not existing at all? That's a tough call.

So the big question is: Why are we born as slaves, but told that we are free? It doesn't add up.

WHY are we always told that this is a free country, that we have freedom, democracy and were born with inalienable rights? And why do most people utter all this with patriotic pride as though it were Gospel Truth? It doesn't make sense at all.

It's the ultimate contradiction between action and words, and in this case, a total contradiction.

Is it because people have a need to believe that they are free, even if they are living as slaves their whole lives? If so, why do most people not notice such an obvious and blatant lie?

Perhaps it's because most people are conditioned from birth to WANT to conform. They have a need to belong to something, especially if their egos are undermined by society to feel inadequate.

Plus, people are conditioned to be mostly practical about life, for a good reason. Practical people conform and are easier to control. They tend to believe that the only "practical" and realistic way to live is to submit to authority and conform to society. This is especially true in Asia, where the cultures and populations have an almost purely practical mentality. Thus they live to conform and have no desire not to. It's the ideal situation for the establishment there.

That's why they don't have philosophy classes where they teach you to think for yourself in grade school or high school, only in college.

Is freedom the ultimate lie? If so, why am I the only one who sees this? Is the establishment really that successful in indoctrinating people into wanting to conform? If so, why are there people like me who are immune to brainwashing and always thinking for myself outside the system and outside the box wherever I go?

Of course, thinking these things and asking these kind of questions is taboo. Few ever dare to ask them. Such ways of thinking are a threat to the establishment and their order of things. It is condemned and ostracized.

Let's look at what kind of freedom we have in America. Ok we have freedom of religion. But that exists in most countries (contrary to US propaganda). We have the freedom to go to the mall and choose to buy the things that we want (yipee, like that's not true in every country). And every four years we get to vote for either the Democratic or the Republican Presidential candidate. Both of course, represent establishment interests. The establishment has divided itself into two groups on paper, making it look like there is a variety of representation in government. Whichever candidate wins the election, the establishment wins either way. (Yet we are always slaves, told what to do, and controlled by others all our lives.)

And that's freedom and democracy???

That's like me locking you chained in a dungeon, and whipping you everyday, and giving you a choice whether you want to be whipped by the brown whip or black whip, and calling that your "freedom of choice". lol

Honestly, I don't understand what the purpose of the American Revolutionary War was. I mean, whether it be the British Crown or the local US government, either way you are under constant control and must submit to authority. Freedom from a foreign country means you are only in submission to another governance in your own country. Either way, you are not really free to do what you want. Either way, you still have to constantly conform, submit to authority, and become a wage slave to others. So what's the point?

Same with my other country, Taiwan. In Taiwan the media and people are always talking about keeping their "freedom" from Mainland China. That's the only kind of "freedom" that they know and understand. Yet they never talk about freedom from society's rules and pressures to conform, freedom from jobs, freedom to do what you want, etc. That's the only real freedom. If you can't do what you want, then you aren't truly free. But Taiwanese never see it that way. They seem born to conform. They believe deep down that a person is nothing and incomplete without a wage slave job, which controls your life 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and ties you geographically to one area long term. I don't understand it. What difference is it going to make to their lives whether they are governed by Taiwan or China, when either way, they are controlled by others and slaves to work? I think it's more about nationalistic pride to them, than true freedom to do what you want. (But in their case, they want to be workaholics, so they don't see it as an infringement upon their freedom I guess. Whatever. I've never understood them.) It's like a pseudo freedom that they are told they have that really doesn't matter one way or another.

Frankly, I think the freest countries I've been to are in Europe, not because there aren't laws there (of course there are). But because it's the most broad minded, nonjudgmental part of the world I've ever been in. People there don't automatically label you a loser if you don't have a job or aren't a workaholic or don't conform to society. So in that sense, it's freer by comparison.

What do you all think about all these forbidden thoughts?

To me, REAL freedom means that you can do what you want, MOST of the time. But most people do not get to do whatever they want most of the time. Only the very rich or lucky do. Most people have to conform, submit and comply to something or someone in their environment, all their lives. Where is the freedom in that? Seems like a mass big lie.

Another thing is that deep down I'm very disgusted by the fact that EVERYTHING has to always be about money. That's a very very very SICK way to live and operate. But we can't do anything about it, so most people conform to it. I still think it's very sick and dysfunctional and unnatural deep down. That's why I joined the Zeitgeist Movement (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com), because it's the only movement out there that addresses this in an eloquent scientific manner and provides the best alternatives and solutions to the system.

Anyhow, peace out.

[gmm567]

Well your freedom is greatly restricted because we have to produce things. Untill those things are produced for free, people have to do them. And many of those things are not fun or rewarding.

[Shokkers]

I think you're close--the difference might be merely semantic--but here's what I think:
The 'controls' you mention do exist, and most are installed with good intentions...For example, traffic lights keep intersections from being death traps. They do 'control' traffic, and by proxy, your movement...but people can opt out of obeying them (and take their life in their hands, as well as possibly some others).

You can opt out of most controls, but there are consequences. Opt out of school, you're apt to stuck with a lousy job. Opt out of work, you either starve or become a criminal. Break this or that law, you run the risk of being prosecuted/incarcerated, etc. Ironically, we can opt IN to more control by our own choices...for example, you join the 'Nation of Islam', you give up give up pork and alcohol. You take this or that job, you tacitly agree to be searched, drug-tested, whatever.

There are some controls I don't care for...such as the prosecution of victimless crimes ('soft' drug use, prostitution, polgamy, etc.), but until enough like-minded people force a change, we're stuck with them.

It's possible to 'buy' freedom...for example, with enough $$$, you could buy your own Carribean island and set yourself up as an independent government with no laws or taxes, but you'd better bring EVERYTHING with you. (An older Harrison Ford movie called THE MOSQUITO COAST tells of a man who tries it, but unfortunately dooms his family in the process.)

While you're at it, the comedian Doug Stanhope (one of my personal favorites) goes into detail about Freedom in a special called "Dead Beat Hero"...it's out on Youtube, I think...

[jamesbond]

Good post Winston. I especially agree with the points about working. I heard a statistic that said 78% of Americans HATE their jobs! I believe it, just how many people do you know actually LIKE their jobs? We truely are slaves to our jobs, our bosses become like our parents telling us what to do and how to do it. There is so much office politics going on, it's not even funny.

I think most people hated high school as that was like being in a concentration camp. You had to go to school, listen to your teachers take notes and do homework. Most of what you learned in school, you forget a short time later and most of what you learn is not going to help you later in life! The truely rich I think are the ones who are free (at least the most free) as they are financially independent and can do what they want. I think becoming rich is your ticket to becoming free, because then you don't have to work and can do what you want, when you want!

[Winston]

So true James Bond. And even in a nature-based society like the American Indians, you are still bound to the rules and standards of your tribe, and have to live up to them.

So either way, there's no real freedom. Some of the rich are still workaholics, cause they're addicted to work.

I'm not saying that everyone should be lazy and never do anything. I'm just saying that it should be a CHOICE whether one wants to be a workaholic or not. If there isn't a choice, then there can't be freedom. For society to require you to become a workaholic just to make ends meet, means that there is no real freedom. If you had real freedom, then you could CHOOSE whether you want to work all day, read all day, hike all day, be online, pursue hobbies, go out, travel the world, bake cookies, paint pictures, write books, etc. If it's mandatory and you have to conform to it, then how can that be freedom?

You see, the "freedom" that the capitalist system boasts about is the freedom to work and make money, to start a business or career. But it assumes that EVERYONE wants to be a workaholic and was born to be one, and that given a choice prefers to work and make money rather than just enjoy life everyday. So, America offers freedom in that sense, if you are a workaholic and want to be "free to work and become a wage slave (or start a business which is very risky)". So basically it's not the freedom to do whatever you want. It's freedom to become a workaholic, wage slave, or entrepreneur (if you have the funds and drive).

To me, that's not freedom, because freedom is being able to do what you want, whether it be working or not working.

[V]

Here's my theory --

All life forms tend to conserve energy. Birds hop three feet away to get a worm because hopping uses less energy than flying.

Humans tend to conform because it is easier on the brain, and humans survive by using their brain. No real thought necessary to conform. Being an original leader is difficult. Being a conformist follower is easy.

Male lions battle each other for the right to be leader of the pride, and have all the lioness p***y (plus, the lionesses do most of the work by hunting). One day, a bigger, badder male lion kicks the old dude's ass and takes over as the new king.

Humans work the same way. The only difference is, humans survive primarily on brain power. Older humans (mostly male) figured out how to use their brains to gain power within the tribe or society. They discovered that humans could be manipulated through brainwashing.

There are people who want to control others, people who want to just go along (it's easier), and people who reject both sides of that game.

Seeing the brainwashing is the first step to freedom. If everyone saw it, everyone would be far more free.

[momopi]

Hi all,
Something's been bothering me lately.

Why is it that we are all told that this is a free country and that we are all born free with inalienable rights, when in reality, people are always trying to control us and make us conform and become slaves? From the moment we are born, someone is always trying to constantly CONTROL us in some shape or form, and pressure us to CONFORM, whether it be parents, schools, governments, organizations and institutions, corporations we work for, spouses and family, society, etc. using guilt, condemnation and deprivation if we don't comply?

1. Political freedom is not the same category as social norms.
2. It's imposible to have an established society without social norms (behavioral expectations).
3. A slave cannot vote with his/her feet. You can.

[momopi]

Honestly, I don't understand what the purpose of the American Revolutionary War was. I mean, whether it be the British Crown or the local US government, either way you are under constant control and must submit to authority. Freedom from a foreign country means you are only in submission to another governance in your own country. Either way, you are not really free to do what you want. Either way, you still have to constantly conform, submit to authority, and become a wage slave to others. So what's the point?

It's a taxation with/without representation issue.

From the British point of view, they were heavily subsidizing the colonies, where each British citizen had paid 25 shillings in taxes, each American colonial only paid 6 pennies. Thus the British crown imposed various taxes on the colonies, and the colonies revolted with guns because they had no other means to repeal the taxes. Yes, people fought and killed over money.

Some may argue that there's little difference where the US government, on Federal and State levels, could impose taxes as well. But with a democratic process, we the people have the power to restrict government taxation. The California Prop 13 (1978) is one such example. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and is now enshrined in California State Constitution. It states:

"The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property."

Because people like Howard Jarvis could legally fight back under our political system and restrict government taxation, there is no need to raise arms and overthrow the government.

http://www.hjta.org/

[Winston]

Honestly, I don't understand what the purpose of the American Revolutionary War was. I mean, whether it be the British Crown or the local US government, either way you are under constant control and must submit to authority. Freedom from a foreign country means you are only in submission to another governance in your own country. Either way, you are not really free to do what you want. Either way, you still have to constantly conform, submit to authority, and become a wage slave to others. So what's the point?

It's a taxation with/without representation issue.

From the British point of view, they were heavily subsidizing the colonies, where each British citizen had paid 25 shillings in taxes, each American colonial only paid 6 pennies. Thus the British crown imposed various taxes on the colonies, and the colonies revolted with guns because they had no other means to repeal the taxes. Yes, people fought and killed over money.

Some may argue that there's little difference where the US government, on Federal and State levels, could impose taxes as well. But with a democratic process, we the people have the power to restrict government taxation. The California Prop 13 (1978) is one such example. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and is now enshrined in California State Constitution. It states:

"The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property."

Because people like Howard Jarvis could legally fight back under our political system and restrict government taxation, there is no need to raise arms and overthrow the government.

http://www.hjta.org/

W: Taxation without representation was the excuse the elite needed for the war. But Benjamin Franklin even said that taxes were eternal. In the US you also have taxation without representation. So what's the difference? The 16th Amendment was not voted on by the people. People would never vote for taxes, so they have to be imposed.

So the Revolutionary War did nothing. It was a con, and most people are easy to brainwash because orthodoxy is Gospel Law to them. They don't see through BS easily.

Former US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once opined:

"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or Democracy, but you cannot have both."

Furthermore, the Senate was created to keep true democracy out of America.

One of my advisors explained:

" What was the need for a bicameral legislature? Why not just have
a House of Representatives, with representative numbers tied to
population levels, and which would democratically vote on issues
which would then be passed (or not) by majority decission? What need
is there for a Senate?

The answer to that question is that idea of a Senate was borrowed
from ancient Rome, where it was a governing body of the wealthy
elite, most of whom obtained their senatorships through heredity.
In the US one attains a senate by going through an extensive
rite-of-passage and becoming thoroughly indoctrinated in the ways
and means of the ruling elite. Our senate basically functions as
a restriction on what would be the otherwise unrestricted democracy
of the House of Representatives. Thus no major bill proposed by
mere citizens, and voted on through their representatives, can
pass into law without getting the stamp of approval from the
Senate, first. Senators are seduced into the fold of the status quo
by a number of means, most of which offfer to enhance their power,
such as longer terms, and membership on key planning and steering
committees.

What all of this adds up to is a system in which a small segment of the
population is able to exercise vast control over the rest of the
populace, and which in large degree gets the populace to go along
with the system by reinforcing the illusion that the average person
has more direct influence on the system than he or she actually does have."


Simply put, there is no democracy and there never was. People always want to control you.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny."

[momopi]

Simply put, there is no democracy and there never was. People always want to control you.

You do not believe in democracy because you're picking bones from an egg. In other words, it's pointless to hold a discussion with a disgruntled person who simply wants to be disgruntled.

Under a democratic system where decisions are ratified by majority vote, you'd still be unsatisfied if the results doesn't benefit you in some way and consider it to be oppression by the majority. Even if you moved to Slab city in CA, where there's no police, no taxes, and no law, you'd probably still be unhappy with the community's social-behavioral expectations of its residents.


But, since you brought it up,

1. The 16th Amendment's passing required ratification by 3/4th of all States. Amendments can be repealed by passisng another amendment. Example: the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

2. Senators are directly elected since 17th Amendment. Prior to that, some 30 states had already choose to elect their Senators via popular vote through referendum (like propositions today). Since Senators are directly elected, each voter today can easily check the internet to see their Senator's voting record on tax acts and decide who they should vote for in the next election. See RON PAUL's record here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#L ... osponsored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#L ... ponsored_2

3. Some people do vote for higher taxes when they believe in its necessity. Here in CA our tax increases must be ratified by direct, popular vote. The CA Prop 10 (1998) levied 50 cent tax per pack of smokes. It was passed with a narrow 1% margin (50.5% YES : 49.50% NO). Majority oppression against smokers! Woohoo!


Now, to give another plug for my favorite US Senator, Ron Paul, let's see what bills he sponsored:

H.J.RES.23
Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.91
Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for four-year terms for Senators, to limit the number of terms any individual may serve as Senator or Representative, and to limit the length of each session of the Congress.

H.CON.RES.33
Title: A concurrent resolution prohibiting use of Federal funds for foreign travel by Senators, Representatives, and officers and employees of the Congress, unless such travel is specifically authorized by a recorded three-fourths vote of the House involved.

H.R.875
Title: A bill to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.

H.R.2137
Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that a 10-percent income tax rate shall apply to all individuals, and to repeal all deductions, credits, and exclusions for individuals other than an exemption of $10,000.

H.R.2136
Title: A bill to repeal the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.

H.R.2962
Title: A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.

etc.

RON PAUL has been fighting for YOUR FREEDOM in the US Government for the past 30 years. Spread the word!

[V]

Simply put, there is no democracy and there never was. People always want to control you.

Winston,

Have you ever read "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner (written in 1867)? If not, search online and read it. You might get a lot out of it.

Also, "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine (1776) was hugely important in motivating people to revolt from Britain. Read that, too, if you haven't. Most colonists back then read it (literacy rates where higher then than they are today -- not lower, as most people presume).

Paine was an anarchist (believed no government was the best government), and there was very little government after the war. That is, until 1787, when "elitists" (so-called) gathered to make the central government stronger, which would benefit the insiders. Alexander Hamilton may have been the most influential person in the course of American history, and he advocated a monarchy or dictatorship (though he used more polite language).

When you unravel what really went on during that time, as opposed to what government-controlled schools teach, it becomes obvious that there have always been those who want to control others and those who want to be left alone. It is the story of world history.

[gmm567]

Well part of the reason we have less choices in terms of work /leisure is that, in housing at least, we have mandated certain levels of quality. In the Philipines, you can rent a small room for $50. It's not possible to do that here. You'd be homeless.

In Europe, the germans anyway, get 2 months off paid vacation . They have more choices of work/leisure cause of the socialism, and spreading the wealth around.

[momopi]

Well part of the reason we have less choices in terms of work /leisure is that, in housing at least, we have mandated certain levels of quality. In the Philipines, you can rent a small room for $50. It's not possible to do that here. You'd be homeless.

If you can afford to buy a camper, you can stay in places like this for free:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City

No taxes, no government, no police, no law.

VERY interesting people there. hehehe.

[Winston]

Simply put, there is no democracy and there never was. People always want to control you.

You do not believe in democracy because you're picking bones from an egg. In other words, it's pointless to hold a discussion with a disgruntled person who simply wants to be disgruntled.

Under a democratic system where decisions are ratified by majority vote, you'd still be unsatisfied if the results doesn't benefit you in some way and consider it to be oppression by the majority. Even if you moved to Slab city in CA, where there's no police, no taxes, and no law, you'd probably still be unhappy with the community's social-behavioral expectations of its residents.


But, since you brought it up,

1. The 16th Amendment's passing required ratification by 3/4th of all States. Amendments can be repealed by passisng another amendment. Example: the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

2. Senators are directly elected since 17th Amendment. Prior to that, some 30 states had already choose to elect their Senators via popular vote through referendum (like propositions today). Since Senators are directly elected, each voter today can easily check the internet to see their Senator's voting record on tax acts and decide who they should vote for in the next election. See RON PAUL's record here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#L ... osponsored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#L ... ponsored_2

3. Some people do vote for higher taxes when they believe in its necessity. Here in CA our tax increases must be ratified by direct, popular vote. The CA Prop 10 (1998) levied 50 cent tax per pack of smokes. It was passed with a narrow 1% margin (50.5% YES : 49.50% NO). Majority oppression against smokers! Woohoo!


Now, to give another plug for my favorite US Senator, Ron Paul, let's see what bills he sponsored:

H.J.RES.23
Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

H.J.RES.91
Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for four-year terms for Senators, to limit the number of terms any individual may serve as Senator or Representative, and to limit the length of each session of the Congress.

H.CON.RES.33
Title: A concurrent resolution prohibiting use of Federal funds for foreign travel by Senators, Representatives, and officers and employees of the Congress, unless such travel is specifically authorized by a recorded three-fourths vote of the House involved.

H.R.875
Title: A bill to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.

H.R.2137
Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that a 10-percent income tax rate shall apply to all individuals, and to repeal all deductions, credits, and exclusions for individuals other than an exemption of $10,000.

H.R.2136
Title: A bill to repeal the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.

H.R.2962
Title: A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.

etc.

RON PAUL has been fighting for YOUR FREEDOM in the US Government for the past 30 years. Spread the word!

W: There's no democracy for many reasons. This has nothing to do with me personally. Intellectuals have argued this for a long time.

As long as money and power can be used to corrupt and influence, there can never be a fair system or a truly democratic system, because those in power, or the elite, will find a way to take control of everything.

Remember former US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once opined:

"You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or Democracy, but you cannot have both."

If you watch the Zeitgeist Movie, it explains it in amazing detail. It's a very awakening film and a 1000 percent must see. I've seen it several times and am inspired by it each time, in a way that I never have before. Every truth seeker loves it. It urgently lets you know what's going on and urges a wake up call. It's deeper than I can describe here, as it covers very deep and serious issues that we often suppress. It's probably the most meaningful film I've ever seen, EVER.

[Winston]

By the way, for those who think that America is a "true democracy" and has succumbed to the propaganda, here is a fantastic three hour film called "Manufacturing Consent" which contain clips by Noam Chomsky, one of the world's top intellectuals. He explains why the US is not a true democracy and how propaganda and mind control are used by the elite to control public opinion.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ng+consent

Here also is an article explaining why America is not a true democracy but a plutocracy. (or what some call a corporatocracy)

http://www.beyondplutocracy.com/

Excerpt from Introduction:

"Plutocracy is governance by the wealthy. Most of America’s many political, economic, and social ills are caused or aggravated by its most fundamental problem: America is not really a democracy but a plutocracy overwhelmingly dominated and operated by a wealthy few. Our government was created by, is populated by, and first and best serves a wealthy elite that holds a perpetual hegemony of power and wealth through the generations, much to the detriment of the rest of the populace.

Elections are left to a marketplace, mass media, and political parties that are mostly owned and operated by the wealthy. Elections, offices, and the favors of government are bought just like any other commodity. Most of the populace is effectively disfranchised and rendered powerless while individual freedom and economic security are increasingly crushed by the twin assaults of ever growing governmental and corporate power.

The existence of two major political parties and a few minor ones at times gives the illusion and feeds the myth that America is a democracy and we have real choices during elections. But the principal electoral choices have already been made by the wealthy and by the preliminary electoral process long before the electoral process ever reaches the vast majority of the electorate. The government remains perpetually populated by the wealthy and wealth-serving who mostly haggle over how to best manage their plutocracy. The economic bottom half and its needs are effectively excluded from government and its decisions. A political cartoon comes to mind that illustrates our true situation: A giant wealthy fat cat complete with a top hat, a big cigar and a cynical smile is standing legs apart and both arms spread outward above the many tiny people below, the electorate. He laughingly exclaims, “You may take my Right hand or my Left hand, but you always get me!�

Applying superficial band aids to our government such as reforming campaign financing, creating term limits, cleaning up scandals, kicking the current “bums� out of office, or struggling with third parties or independent candidates will never fix the problem. The problem is not about people; it is not about who currently occupies political office, “our� party or candidates verses others.

The real problem is the political system itself, the fundamental design and structure of our government. While creating a constitution and government in the name of all of the people and claiming to favor no particular faction, the founders—fifty-five powerful wealthy men—in fact wrote a constitution and created a government that overwhelmingly favored themselves and similar others. It continues to favor similar others—powerful wealthy elites, the plutocrats—through the generations to this day.

Until the fundamental imbalance of political power that overwhelmingly favors the wealthy is corrected, all attempts at repairing our nation’s many ills are doomed to very limited success or outright failure. Correcting this imbalance of power requires a partial redesign of our government.

Most political correctives offered today fail both at overcoming plutocracy and at adequately achieving and securing the freedom of the individual. This book offers for your consideration a partial redesign of the American government that really fixes in just the right way what is really wrong with it.

The government design presented here strikes a judicious balance of political power that, unlike the design of the founders, really does not unduly favor any particular group. It achieves a truly democratic process and the consensus of the entire electorate on our nation’s most important issues. It results in the honest representation of all members of the electorate in the representative branches of government. It mitigates the worst and brings out the best that our market economy has to offer. It achieves and secures the fullest freedom of the individual and liberty in the nation. And it nurtures responsibility and excellence in each of us.

Also, of crucial importance for the existence and success of any truly democratic process involving a busy electorate whose members have varying capability, the democratic process presented here is very convenient. It requires surprisingly little time and effort. And it is simple enough for those who are not politically sophisticated and sophisticated enough for those who are politically astute.



The distribution of power is the most fundamental of all political issues. Good government and a good society require the correct distribution of power as their foundation. Excessive power cannot be held by an elite few, the simple majority, or any other faction of the populace.

Joining direct democracy and representative democracy together in just the right way achieves a correct distribution of power resulting in a government that overcomes the shortcomings of both. Direct democracy is people directly voting on issues. Representative democracy—truly representative democracy!—is people voting in truly free elections for representatives that honestly represent the entire electorate and populace in government.

Most people mistakenly believe that America already practices representative democracy. But it does not. This can be readily seen when our current so-called representative democracy with its extreme concentrations of power and wealth and widespread social injustice is compared by you, dear reader, with the truly representative democracy proposed in this book. Understand that it is by the inclusion of just the right kind and amount of direct democracy that the representative branches of our government (or any government) are rendered truly representative.

By itself, so-called “representative� democracy only results in the tyranny of plutocracy, exploitive governance by the wealthy. But the usually proposed alternative, unlimited majority-rule direct democracy, were it ever tried, would only result in “the tyranny of democracy,� the political, economic, religious, and behavioral tyranny of the simple majority over the rest of the populace. And, examined more closely, this “majority� would really only be a highly organized, doggedly active, radical political minority."