Working People's Bill of Rights

[MSchreader]

Note: This is a working draft. I am interested in constructive comments about it (in other words, don't just get on here and tell me it's shit or impossible). -- Martin

---

Working People's Bill of Rights

1. The United States of America is a democratic republic. All power to govern rests in the hands, and informed consent, of the citizens of the United States, either directly or through its democratically elected representatives.

2. Working people -- those who engage in meaningful labor as their primary means of subsistence -- are the majority in the United States, and their common interests and desires shall be the guiding principles of this republic.

3. For the purpose of securing real freedom of conscience and thought, Congress shall make no law abridging the separation of church and state, and the separation of church and school, and the right to express one’s self for or against religious teachings shall not be infringed.

4. For the purpose of securing real freedom of speech, Congress shall make no law abridging the right to speak out on any issue. Further, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to express their dissatisfaction or opposition to the policies and practices of the United States or any State, or any elected representative of the United States or any State.

5. For the purpose of securing real freedom of information, Congress shall make no law abridging the free dissemination of information, including government legislation, executive orders, treaties and agreements, decrees and decisions, minutes and proceedings, and other legal documents issued by the government of the United States or any State.

6. For the purpose of securing real freedom of knowledge, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to a full education, from pre-kindergarten to post-graduate studies, and shall ensure it is accessible to all people.

7. For the purpose of securing real freedom of assembly, public facilities shall be made available to all citizens for the purposes of holding public meetings, rallies, demonstrations and other events, with all costs associated with the maintenance of these facilities borne by the United States, or by mutual agreement between the United States and any State or municipality within a State.

8. For the purpose of securing real freedom of the press:

a. All dependence of the print media upon private capital is abolished. Printing presses, bookbinderies, and all other forms of conveying thoughts and ideas in written form shall be considered the common property of the people of the United States, and shall be fully accessible to them. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to express their views in print and to have them freely circulated.

b. All dependence of telecommunications upon private capital is abolished. Television, radio and Internet communications networks shall be considered the common property of the people of the United States, and shall be full accessible to them. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to express their views in these forms and to have them freely circulated.

9. For the purpose of securing real freedom of privacy and security of one's person:

a. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of any person residing in the United States or any State to their right to not be subject to a search of their homes, possessions or person without probable cause, as delineated by a duly elected court of the United States or any State.

b. Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of any persons to engage in mutually consensual relations of any kind.

10. For the purpose of securing real freedom of association:

a. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of working people to organize in the workplace for the purposes of bargaining collectively. Further, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of working people to take whatever measures necessary to secure these rights, including the right to strike, to engage in workplace actions in solidarity with other working people on strike, or to elect their own representatives regardless of race, nationality, gender, sexuality, age, ability, religion, language or political affiliation.

b. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of working people to organize for the purposes of participating in the political life of the United States or any State, including the right of labor unions and other economic associations of working people to directly participate.

11. For the purpose of securing real freedom of health and safety:

a. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of any resident of the United States or any State to seek or receive all necessary medical attention and service, and shall ensure it is accessible to all people.

b. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of any person engaging in meaningful labor to work in a safe and secure environment, unless such risks are clearly delineated in advance.

12. For the purpose of securing real freedom of security and a humane quality of life:

a. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of any resident of the United States to engage in meaningful labor as a means of providing for themselves and their families, and to receive compensation that provides for a quality standard of living, and is equal and/or of comparative worth.

b. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to residents of the United States to obtain quality housing or other acceptable shelter, and shall ensure it is accessible to all people.

13. For the purpose of securing real freedom of due process and equal protection under the law, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the accused:

a. To remain silent when questioned by civil authorities;

b. To be represented by counsel;

c. To be provided counsel if the accused cannot afford hiring one;

d. To be considered innocent until proven guilty;

e. To not be coerced into confession;

f. To not be tortured or subjected to cruel or unusual punishment;

g. To not be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention;

h. To have a speedy trial;

i. To have a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

j. To have a jury trial at their request;

k. To be informed of the charges against them;

l. To confront their accuser and witnesses;

m. To not be tried twice for the same crime;

n. To appeal the decision of the court.

14. For the purpose of securing real freedom to participate in the life of the country:

a. All residents of the United States who can demonstrate that they have engaged in meaningful labor for a period of more than six months continuous shall be granted full citizenship, regardless of race, nationality, gender, sexuality, age, ability, religion, language or political affiliation.

b. All those seeking asylum in the United States due to discrimination and persecution based on race, nationality, gender, sexuality, age, ability, religion, language or political affiliation shall be granted full citizenship rights upon acceptance of their asylum application.

15. For the purpose of securing real freedom from oppression, Congress shall take all steps necessary to secure the rights of all people of the United States to be free from systematic and institutional discrimination and prejudice in employment, housing, health care, education, due process of the law, and all other aspects of society, based on race, nationality, gender, sexuality, age, ability, religion, language or political affiliation, and shall take prompt action, up to and including criminal court proceedings, when such situations arise.

16. For the purpose of securing real democratic representation in the government of the United States, all officers of the United States government, including the President, Vice President, Senators and Representatives, shall be elected by direct universal suffrage of the citizens of the United States, or the appropriate State, on the basis of attaining a plurality or simple majority.

17. Congress shall have the power to enforce all provisions of this article through appropriate legislation.

[Yupster]

1. Looking constructively

Here are my constructive comments.

#6 The Wall Street Journal had an interesting story today about big time college chess teams in America. It seems that it is pretty much impossible for even the best grandmasters in the nation to make a living playing chess, but they've found a solution. They get scholarships to join college chess teams. They don't have to actually work on a degree. In fact, the best team in the US averages 29 years old, and has had the same players for eight years with no end in sight. Other colleges are complaining that there should be some limit on how long these (choke, choke) students should be able to play varsity chess. Do you really want to make "professional student" a government protected occupation, because there are tens of thousands of young people (and I was one of them) who would have gladly collected degree after degree if I could have stayed on campus forever. Currently only those who work their way from student to grad student to grad assistant to professor are able to stay in that time tunnel of arrested development.

#7 You have the right to form a group of Dirty Old Men Against Age of Consent Laws if you want to, and you have the right to have as many meetings as you want, but I don't see where you have a right for the government to provide you with a place to meet. Find your own place.

# 8 Does this mean that everyone has the right to have their book published so I can finally have my book published of 400 pages of the letter Y? Or will there be a government committee that will establish which books are worthy of being published and which aren't? Leave me out of that idea. Same with TV. Can everyone get a TV show? I want a one hour a week show called "See my socks." Or is there going to be a government committee which decides which shows are worthy of being broadcasted and which aren't? I sure don't like that idea.

# 8b "mutually consentual relationships of any kind." Like master-slave? Sadist-masochist? Prostitute-John? Husband-Five wives? Adult man- 11 year old girl?

# 16 "plurality or simple majority" are two very different things. "universal suffrage of all the citizens" even the five year old ones?

Plus an assortment of generalities like "quality standard of living" and "comparitive worth," which can mean anything or nothing depending on who's definition you are listening too.

So, those are my constructive criticisms on first reading.

[MSchreader]

2. My reply

#6 The Wall Street Journal had an interesting story today about big time college chess teams in America. It seems that it is pretty much impossible for even the best grandmasters in the nation to make a living playing chess, but they've found a solution. They get scholarships to join college chess teams. They don't have to actually work on a degree. In fact, the best team in the US averages 29 years old, and has had the same players for eight years with no end in sight. Other colleges are complaining that there should be some limit on how long these (choke, choke) students should be able to play varsity chess. Do you really want to make "professional student" a government protected occupation, because there are tens of thousands of young people (and I was one of them) who would have gladly collected degree after degree if I could have stayed on campus forever. Currently only those who work their way from student to grad student to grad assistant to professor are able to stay in that time tunnel of arrested development.

As you point out in this example, this is already done, but it is at the moment the exclusive property of the well-off or specially-skilled. My opinion is that if someone who has spent a good portion of their life on the assembly line wants to go spend some time acquiring college degrees, then, yes, that should be a "government protected occupation".

#7 You have the right to form a group of Dirty Old Men Against Age of Consent Laws if you want to, and you have the right to have as many meetings as you want, but I don't see where you have a right for the government to provide you with a place to meet. Find your own place.

I just love reducto ad absurdum arguments! Great way to protect the "rights of the minority" over and against the rights of the majority, Yupster.

# 8 Does this mean that everyone has the right to have their book published so I can finally have my book published of 400 pages of the letter Y? Or will there be a government committee that will establish which books are worthy of being published and which aren't? Leave me out of that idea. Same with TV. Can everyone get a TV show? I want a one hour a week show called "Shaving Pubic Hair." Or is there going to be a government committee which decides which shows are worthy of being broadcasted and which aren't? I sure don't like that idea.

I'd be willing to waste the recycled paper on 10,000 copies of your useless book. Why? Because I think you have the right to be published if you wish (and since I figure that the 9,999 copies that are not bought will be recycled again for a publication that people want). But I think your TV idea wouldn't fly. Why? I believe it's already done on a cable/satellite station. Go figure.

And, no, there would not be some anonmyous government committee overseeing the content of publications or television.

Get a clue, Yupster. We're talking democracy here.

# 8b "mutually consentual relationships of any kind." Like master-slave? Sadist-masochist? Prostitute-John? Husband-Five wives? Adult man- 11 year old girl?

I've never known a "master-slave" relationship to be mutually consensual (BTW, this is the correct spelling). And an adult-adolescent relationship can be seen the same way. As for the others, it's not my business what people do in their bedrooms. And it ain't yours, either.

# 16 "plurality or simple majority" are two very different things. "universal suffrage of all the citizens" even the five year old ones?

On the first point: Duh! On the second point: it can be changed to "universal suffrage of all the citizens OF VOTING AGE".

Plus an assortment of generalities like "quality standard of living" and "comparitive worth," which can mean anything or nothing depending on who's definition you are listening too.

So can "freedom of speech", "freedom of the press" and "the right to keep and bear arms". I guess you're against these "generalities" being in the Constitution too?

So, those are my constructive criticisms on first reading.

So, this is what you call constructive? I'd hate to see destructive.

Martin

[MSchreader]

3. Official "kick" subthread

:kick:

[buddhamama]

4. hello,Martin

very good.

i have a question/comment about number 16.
you're getting rid of the electoral college...i know that this in the Working People's Bill of Rights; could/would you want to address Campaign Financing?

it was good to see education addressed here. i've begun a serious research/study of globalization,WTO,IMF,etc, and this one very imporant issue seems to be missing from the discussions.

[MSchreader]

8. Reply

you're getting rid of the electoral college...i know that this in the Working People's Bill of Rights; could/would you want to address Campaign Financing?

I would tend to see that as part of the "appropriate legislation", but if you have an idea of how to phrase it, please post it here.

Martin

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. For the purpose of freedom

You seek to destroy it by totally changing the nature of our nation into communist/socialist test case. No thanks. And yes, that is constructive criticism.

[MSchreader]

9. Constructive ... like a wrecking ball

Now I see why you have the username you do. Talk about muddle! Where is the "communist/socialist test case" in all this? Is it the right to a job? The right to health care? The right to education? The rights -- in concrete terms -- to free speech, free assembly, free association and free press?

Where is the "communist/socialist test case"?

Martin

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Come on

Not exactly a wrecking ball. If you can't take the heat...

OK some comments and questions since you seem to be dying for them:

3. How does this item impact religious organizations? Can they still choose to hire who they want or would the Catholic Church have to hire an atheist or satanist?

5. Of course Congress and the government need to keep some information private. This is a fantasyland item that presupposes everyone who gets access to information will use it for good.

6. This is ridiculous, so I can go to school for free for the rest of my life on the public dime? It is to laugh. Who pays for that?

7. The government has to open up facilities for all groups all over the nation? Why? I don't hear of any groups having a hard time finding meeting space. Look at the Dean people, they aren't strapped for locations. This is just a massive expansion of government for no purpose other than your dreams of a socialist paradise.

8. Up to this point, I had only considered your proposals bad. Here is where they became dangerous. Government controlled media. Yeah, THAT will work well. Not to mention, the forced government takeover of an entire sector of the economy. I can honestly tell you, as a former editor, that I would oppose this one with force if needed.

10. What about MY rights to NOT join your union. Somehow that seems lost in the shuffle of this item. Workers' paradise my sweet patootie.

11. "All necessary medical attention?" OK, this begs a question. What limits do we set on medical care in your paradise? We can't pay for everything. If one person needs medical care that costs $10 million, that impacts everyone else. Where does experiemental care come in?

12. Are you calling for comparable pay for all jobs in this one? Couldn't tell. And, of course, now we have to fund housing for everyone too.

14. Ah, the open our doors to everyone who can enter the U.S. amendment. No. There is more to citizenship than just working. Citizenship is earned, it is not a right to anyone who gets here. And there are billions of people around the world who are "seeking asylum in the United States due to discrimination and persecution based on race, nationality, gender, sexuality, age, ability, religion, language or political affiliation." Do we let them all in?

15. Wait a second, some of this sounds right, but "systematic and institutional discrimination and prejudice" based on ability? You mean if someone can't do a job, we still have to hire them? If they can't speak the language to do a job, they still get it?

16. OK, you want to rid us of the Electoral College. What happens when you have a close vote like last time? That means not just a recount fiasco in Florida, we have a nationwide recount fiasco. Is that better?

[MSchreader]

19. Now I understand

In your view, any expansion of democracy is considered a "communist/socialist test". I get it now.

Thanks for proving, once again, that democracy and capitalism are incompatible.

Martin

P.S.: A word of advice: You may want to remove MLK from your avatar, since he advocated "a modified form of socialism" and many of his closest aides were Socialists or Social Democrats (Father Norman Thomas, Bayard Rustin, etc.).

[zoidberg]

20. Democracy and 'rights' are incompatible

If the majority of people want to outlaw Islam, should they be able to do it? If the majority of people want to ban homosexual sex, should they be able to do it? Your declaration of rights is incredibly undemocratic because you protect the rights of some even if the majority doesn't agree. Democracy is terrible without protections of certain rights. Capitalism just relies on the rights of individuals to own property. Nothing inconsistent with our Constitutional form of government and capitalism.

[MSchreader]

21. Democracy and rights are INSEPARABLE

If the majority of people want to outlaw Islam, should they be able to do it? If the majority of people want to ban homosexual sex, should they be able to do it? Your declaration of rights is incredibly undemocratic because you protect the rights of some even if the majority doesn't agree. Democracy is terrible without protections of certain rights.

If these were to be adopted, how could you say "the majority doesn't agree"? Sounds like a BS argument to me.

Capitalism just relies on the rights of individuals to own property. Nothing inconsistent with our Constitutional form of government and capitalism.

... Right. However, it is entirely inconsistent with democracy. And, I put democracy above the right of an individual to live off the collective labor of others.

Martin

[zoidberg]

22. You are missing my point

A functioning democracy needs safeguards to protect from the 'tyranny of the majority.' Those safeguards need to protect things such as religion, speech and peaceful association. Even if 99.9% of the people want to outlaw Baptists, Baptists should still not be outlawed. The same logic applies to capitalism. If 99.9% of people want to confiscate my legally gotten estate (which amounts to about $2000 right now), they should not be able to do that either.

[MSchreader]

31. The phrase "tyranny of the majority"

Is a myth created by those seeking to justify their very real TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY. Because of the diversity of society, there is no way to impose the kind of restrictions you state and still be able to consider that society democratic. Remember: decisions like the one you state above, regarding Baptists, are precedent that can be applied to any other similar group.

However, the same logic does not apply to capitalism, in my opinion. In fact, quite the opposite! Private property is capital -- the product of collective labor. The very definition of capitalism is theft in the name of the tyranny of the minority. Returning capital to its producers -- in the form of common property to be controlled and organized by the producers -- is bringing democracy into the economy.

If you are a small-d democrat, like myself, then you have to consider the question of extending democracy to all aspects of society, and not limiting it purely to the political arena.

Martin

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Expansion of democracy

Sure, that's one hell of an expansion, taking away the property from everyone who owns any sort of media. Yeah, government confiscation is always an expansion of rights.

As for Martin, you down't have to agree with someone 100% to think he was great. He was a hero to my people and I am honored to use him likeness as an avatar.

[MSchreader]

33. No one person created "the media"

Rupert Murdoch may think he "created" NewsCorp, but it was the many thousands of media workers that built it. And, obviously, we have a difference of opinion over whether or not the people who create such things have a right to decide how they're used. I think they do; that makes me a small-d democrat. You argue the opposite.

Martin

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Lower case letters

You claim to be a "small d" Democrat. I would argue that you are a small or large "S" socialist.

If I put together a business, putting my own capital at risk and convince others to invest in my business, then I and my investors deserve the lion's share of the results. The employees are paid for their labor on a fair market basis. If they don't like it, there are other firms they can work for OR they can start up their own firm.

Murdoch and a host of others OWN those firms. You want to steal them. That is a mega violation of the Constitution (the REAL one) and one I would oppose in open rebellion if needed.

[umcwb]

43. He is a Socialist.

The website he has listed in his profile as his home page is http://www.michigansocialist.net/.

"Murdoch and a host of others OWN those firms. You want to steal them. That is a mega violation of the Constitution (the REAL one) and one I would oppose in open rebellion if needed."

The thing is, he doesn't believe in the Constitution. It goes against what he seems to think is best.

[MSchreader]

45. Red-baiting and lies

The website he has listed in his profile as his home page is http://www.michigansocialist.net/.

Yeah, and?... Are we resorting to crass red-baiting now? Is this the best you've got?

The thing is, he doesn't believe in the Constitution. It goes against what he seems to think is best.

Says you. I'll let the body of work I have submitted to this website over the last year speak to your ignorant comments.

Martin

[umcwb]

50. Well, the website in your profile is the one I posted....

I invite anyone who disagrees with me to check his profile.

As to my comment that you do not believe in the Constitution, I was not basing that on any of your posts over that last year, I was basing that on the "Bill of Rights" that this thread submits. You repeatedly call for the seizure of private property by the State, which is directly against the 4th amendment, which you throw out, along with the second. You advocate the government control of the flow of information. Am I wrong here?

[MSchreader]

52. Quite wrong ... as usual

The IV Amendment speaks to unlawful search and seizure. If it's in the Constitution, it's lawful -- in fact, it's the "supreme law of the land".

I also don't even begin to see where the II Amendment comes in here.

Finally, I do not advocate the government control of information. Again, and as usual, quite the opposite.

Do all of you rehearse these slanders in advance, or is it merely coincidence?

Martin

[Terwilliger]

53. advance

its all very practiced

Socialism bad! Guns good!

[umcwb]

56. You know what, you are right....

I do believe that socialism is bad. I do not, however, believe that guns are good or bad, just as I do not believe that a hammer is good or bad.

[umcwb]

55. OK...

The Constitution is the law of the land. What you propose is against the law of the land.

The 2nd amendment is not in your Bill Of Rights. As most of what you have in yours goes against the real one, it stands to reason that you intend to do away with ours.

"Finally, I do not advocate the government control of information. Again, and as usual, quite the opposite"

The opposite would be private ownership of information, yet you posted....

8. For the purpose of securing real freedom of the press:

a. All dependence of the print media upon private capital is abolished. Printing presses, bookbinderies, and all other forms of conveying thoughts and ideas in written form shall be considered the common property of the people of the United States, and shall be fully accessible to them. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to express their views in print and to have them freely circulated.

b. All dependence of telecommunications upon private capital is abolished. Television, radio and Internet communications networks shall be considered the common property of the people of the United States, and shall be full accessible to them. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to express their views in these forms and to have them freely circulated.


If it cannot be privately funded, then it has to be funded by the State. If the funding is controlled by the government, the press is controlled by government. The entity funding an operation has control of it. Would the presses keep running if the funding was revoked? I would say not, thus the government has the power to stop the presses. That sounds like control to me.

No, I don't rehearse anything, I am just winging it.

slan·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slndr)
n.
Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

The term you are looking for is libel...

li·bel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbl)
n.

A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

You are accusing me of a crime. Are you sure that my posting the link in your profile and saying that you do not believe in the 4th amendment constitutes that?

[Terwilliger]

58. I guess the BBC is censored?

The BBC is government run, yet considered highly impartial. Why shouldn't we employ similar ideas?

Also, the actual intent of the FCC was to regulate transmissions on publicly owned airwaves. With the Telecom Act of 96 and other things, the people hardly own the airwaves. They've been usurped by the "market" and they will decide what it allowed to air. But, of course, it's not government run! Thank Jeebus! :eyes:

[umcwb]

59. Who considers it highly impartial?

I try not to base my thoughts on what is popular. Hell, Faux News is popular, should we employ similar idea?

If the market decides what should be aired, then people are obviously happy with what is being shown. If they were not, then the proper steps would be to boycott the advertisers. If the advertisers lose money, they will cease buying ad time, the network will lose funding, and will adjust there programming to a way of reporting that people agree with. Isn't that the idea of democracy? The people decide?

Now, if you believe that a government run press would be superior, do you like the idea of the current government in control of the presses?

[Terwilliger]

60. ummm

I try not to base my thoughts on what is popular

AND

If the market decides what should be aired, then people are obviously happy with what is being shown.

:shrug:

You keep saying "government run" Why is it "run" by the government? Why is assuring the impartiality through some sort of bi-partisan, or non-partisan editorial process akin to government telling you what to do?

And you talk about Faux news as if it's a bad thing... But that's the market you love...Faux says whatever and people buy it. There's that market you love. Maybe the people want Republicans? :shrug:

[umcwb]

63. I see no contradiction....

I do not base my decisions on what is popular. The market does. I am not the market.

Yes, if the media is government funded, then it is controlled by the government. Can the media exist without funding? No. Who would control the funding? The government. If the government withheld funding, the media would cease to operate. That sounds like control to me.

Yes, I think Faux News is a bad thing. That is why I choose not to watch it. I wish there were an alternative on TV, but until there is, I will continue to get my news from the Net and print media. I, unlike you, do not think that it would be right to take it off air. You speak of the people like they are blind sheep following the loudest voice. I don't think so. I think that a majority of people make their own decisions. If they want to watch FNC, then who am I, or you, to say that they should not be able to? Am I wrong? Do you honestly think that you alone make your own decisions?

This is all fun and interesting, but you guys do understand that something like this will not fly in America, right? This is just an intellectual exercise, isn't it?

[MSchreader]

66. Keep your delusions

This is all fun and interesting, but you guys do understand that something like this will not fly in America, right?

No -- especially considering that when I've shown this to my co-workers on the railroad, all of them said they would support these amendments.

This is just an intellectual exercise, isn't it?

No, it is not.

Martin

[MSchreader]

62. What I propose is to amend the law of the land

I know that people like you have a problem upsetting the status quo, but that is what I propose. Like it or lump it, I don't really care.

The reason that the right to keep and bear arms is not in this is because ... it is already sufficiently defined in the current Constitution. Apparently, you failed to figure out that this is an amendment to the Constitution, not a substitute for it. Typical.

I propose people's control of information, which ensures it is maintained as a free and democratic exchange. Private ownership of the media means that information is controlled by a cabal of capitalist owners. You advocate the restriction of information under the guise of "private property". Again, thanks to the pro-capitalists for showing how it is incompatible with democracy.

I consider exchanges like this to be more like a verbal conversation. Hence, I use the term "slander" in this case. But, if you'd like to be considered a libeler, I can go with that. And, yes, writing things saying I oppose the IV Amendment (and the II Amendment) is "damaging to a person's reputation", namely mine, since it is simply a lie.

But then, pro-capitalists like you often play fast and loose with the truth in these kind of debates anyway. So I consider it par for the course.

Martin

[umcwb]

65. OK, well,

Since neither of us is going to change each others mind, I propose that we call it a day. What you believe is incompatible with what I believe, and vice versa. I thank you for an intellectually stimulating conversation, and hope you have a good weekend.

[MSchreader]

67. OK, same here

Someday, I'll buy you a real one of those avatars. :hi:

Martin

[MSchreader]

44. A small-d democrat

Can be the same as a small- or large-S socialist. I've never said otherwise.

Your argument about private property is no different, in my opinion, than the argument that slave owners used in the 1850s to justify holding people of African descent in chains. You know that as well as I do. Where would you have stood on that "private property" question, Muddle? Would you have defended the Southern plantation owner's rights -- "in open rebellion if needed"?

The question is posed point-blank, Muddle.

Martin

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. People are not property

Conversely, property is not people. That means if you take PROPERTY from someone, something they own, have worked for and improved, then that is theft. I feel strongly about theft, almost as much as I do slavery. I also feel strongly about the Constitution and the freedom of the press.

So, in a nutshell, the plantation owners were wrong and so are you.

[MSchreader]

49. In other words, your answer actually is "yes"

People are not property. Conversely, property is not people.

About 150 years ago, Africans were not considered "people". They were, however, considered "property". Given your uncritical support for the ruling class' definition of "property" today, I can only conclude that, were you to be alive back in the period before the Civil War, you would have also accepted slavery as a legitimate exercise in the use of "property".

That means if you take PROPERTY from someone, something they own, have worked for and improved, then that is theft.

Draw your own conclusions about where you would really be, Muddle.

Martin

[JanMichael]

6. No time to nitpik but the priciples seem sound.

Sure the "devil" is in the details but it's a sound foundation for a more Egalitarian country.

[Blue_Chill]

7. hmmm a few comments

3. For the purpose of securing real freedom of conscience and thought, Congress shall make no law abridging the separation of church and state, and the separation of church and school, and the right to express one’s self for or against religious teachings shall not be infringed.

Shouldn't that read "and the separation of church and state funded school"?

6. For the purpose of securing real freedom of knowledge, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to a full education, from pre-kindergarten to post-graduate studies, and shall ensure it is accessible to all people.

Wouldn't this just water down the value of a college degree? Not to mention cost us insane amounts of money.

You also say "all people" would there be a limit on how many chances you get before I no longer have to pay for you to warm a seat in a community college and fail again and again?

7. For the purpose of securing real freedom of assembly, public facilities shall be made available to all citizens for the purposes of holding public meetings, rallies, demonstrations and other events, with all costs associated with the maintenance of these facilities borne by the United States, or by mutual agreement between the United States and any State or municipality within a State.

So you want me to pay for NAMBLA, KKK, Nazi's, and a score of other org's right to meet?

No thanks.

8. For the purpose of securing real freedom of the press:

a. All dependence of the print media upon private capital is abolished. Printing presses, bookbinderies, and all other forms of conveying thoughts and ideas in written form shall be considered the common property of the people of the United States, and shall be fully accessible to them. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to express their views in print and to have them freely circulated.

Yet again I find a section where I have to pay to have someone I disagree with. Thus by this I could very well be forced to pay for the KKK newsletter which they could have printed every day, because it's free.


b. All dependence of telecommunications upon private capital is abolished. Television, radio and Internet communications networks shall be considered the common property of the people of the United States, and shall be full accessible to them. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to express their views in these forms and to have them freely circulated.

Impossible.

a. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of any resident of the United States to engage in meaningful labor as a means of providing for themselves and their families, and to receive compensation that provides for a quality standard of living, and is equal and/or of comparative worth.

Ah yes, the small business killer. As always the "quality standard of living" will be set too high for the little guy and we'll have 40% unemployment......and taxes on the employed would be about 60%.

[MSchreader]

12. Twaddle

You could have saved yourself some time and just replied to Yupster, above, and wrote: "What he said". Needless to say, I reference you to my reply regarding points 6, 7 and 8a.

Now then, your exclusive comments:

Shouldn't that read "and the separation of church and state funded school"?

No. I meant what I said. I do not believe in private education in a public society. If churches want to try to swindle people out of their money by enrolling their children in courses of religious indoctrination, they have that right. However, I would not dignify such institutions as "schools" -- even if, between "teaching" about six-day Creationism and the glorious resurrection of Christ from the dead, they throw in a little math and English composition courses.

Ah yes, the small business killer. As always the "quality standard of living" will be set too high for the little guy and we'll have 40% unemployment......and taxes on the employed would be about 60%.

Strawman. There are plenty of ways to positively resolve this situation through "appropriate legislation". You know that as well as I do. And yet, you're willing to deny a right that is desired by over 60 percent of the population in order to preserve the petty privilege of about 25-30 percent of the population. Good show.

Martin

[Blue_Chill]

14. Bias and wishful thinking

No. I meant what I said. I do not believe in private education in a public society. If churches want to try to swindle people out of their money by enrolling their children in courses of religious indoctrination, they have that right. However, I would not dignify such institutions as "schools" -- even if, between "teaching" about six-day Creationism and the glorious resurrection of Christ from the dead, they throw in a little math and English composition courses.

Private schools are the very best schools as they will always have more resources then their public counter parts. Among the best private schools are catholic private schools which you seek to be rid of because you consider their education to be sub par. Ever though by all accounts they are SUPERIOR to public school you seek to abolish them.

Would this be the first attack on religion by the commonly anti-freedom of religion communists?

Your response makes me wonder how far you would take your seperation of church and state. In this new context it sounds like you'd want something like your hero Castro in which the religious are barred from the goverment entirely (this recently changed in Cuba).

Strawman. There are plenty of ways to positively resolve this situation through "appropriate legislation". You know that as well as I do. And yet, you're willing to deny a right that is desired by over 60 percent of the population in order to preserve the petty privilege of about 25-30 percent of the population. Good show.

Yes, but typically that means having the goverment provide the jobs that you eliminate from the private sector. This doesn't work, it's little more then an idealistic pipe dream that has been disproven long ago. Even China is turning to capitalist business models in order to better it's own communist economy.

[MSchreader]

17. Bias and a lack of thinking

Private schools are the very best schools as they will always have more resources then their public counter parts. Among the best private schools are catholic private schools which you seek to be rid of because you consider their education to be sub par. Ever though by all accounts they are SUPERIOR to public school you seek to abolish them.

And you talk about MY bias?!

I said they had a right to try to establish an indoctrination program, but I (personally) would not consider that a "school". I also know plenty of people who went to private school, and they are some of the most uneducated and ignorant people I have met.

Would this be the first attack on religion by the commonly anti-freedom of religion communists?

Apparently, you missed the point early on about the right to speak for or against religion. I speak against religion (being an atheist, would you expect otherwise?), but I will not infringe on the right of someone to worship whatever mythical deity they choose -- just as I do not infringe on your right to promote rightwing (relatively speaking), pro-capitalist rhetoric.

And, yes, I would agree that you would have a right to take advantage of all the rights and liberties listed in the Working People's Bill of Rights. After all, the people of this country need to know what kind of shite politics you advocate. ;-)

Your response makes me wonder how far you would take your seperation of church and state. In this new context it sounds like you'd want something like your hero Castro in which the religious are barred from the goverment entirely (this recently changed in Cuba).

First, Castro is not my "hero". I have no "heroes". You can put away your tar and feathers now.

Second, if the people want to elect a religious person to office, that is their right. However, when serving in the government, I would expect that they leave the religious dogma at the door and not attempt to foist it on the people of this country.

Yes, but typically that means having the goverment provide the jobs that you eliminate from the private sector. This doesn't work, it's little more then an idealistic pipe dream that has been disproven long ago. Even China is turning to capitalist business models in order to better it's own communist economy.

Are you ever able to argue without the active use of strawmen? My guess is "no".

I am in favor of workers taking over failed businesses and running them. I am in favor of workers' control of production -- either as publicly-owned industries or as worker-owned cooperatives. I am not in favor of a state capitalist economy, which is what China had since 1949.

Martin

[zoidberg]

15. So no private schools at all???

The irony of you accusing somebody of using a strawman! "If churches want to try to swindle people out of their money by enrolling their children in courses of religious indoctrination, they have that right." Give me a break!

There will be plenty of Notre Dame alumni up in arms over this! But at least now Coach K might get away from Duke and spread his magic someplace else.

[MSchreader]

18. That's my personal opinion

Call it what you will. I make no apologies for not respecting "private schools" or religious education. But, again, that is a personal opinion.

Martin

[AnnabelLee]

10. My thoughts

I'm about as un-wonkish as they come, but here's what jumped out at me:

The phrase "Congress shall"--what about "The Executive branch shall"? The thing that made me think of this was #5:
For the purpose of securing real freedom of information, Congress shall make no law abridging the free dissemination of information, including government legislation, executive orders, treaties and agreements, decrees and decisions, minutes and proceedings, and other legal documents issued by the government of the United States or any State.

I have bolded the phrase "executive orders", because it seems to me, regardless of what Congress does, idiots like * can just override it with an executive order. Maybe you should include a clause whereby Congress shall prohibit executive orders? Or maybe that would backfire, I don't know, just thinking out loud, I guess.

As I said, I'm not a policy wonk, so I could be totally off base here.:-)

[MSchreader]

13. It's an interesting point

I have bolded the phrase "executive orders", because it seems to me, regardless of what Congress does, idiots like * can just override it with an executive order. Maybe you should include a clause whereby Congress shall prohibit executive orders? Or maybe that would backfire, I don't know, just thinking out loud, I guess.

Constitutionally speaking, Congress has the authority to override executive orders, and I fully believe in that level of check and balance. The reason idiots like * are able to "override" Congress with executive orders is because they (Congress) are, in their current form, a compliant tool of * and his cronies. They let him do it, unchallenged.

What is needed is a Congress that will not accept such an imperial arrogance from a chief executive.

Martin

[zoidberg]

11. Rights versus the government paying for something

I have the right to worship as I please, but the government is not obligated to provide me with a place of worship. The same goes for the press, assembly or anything else called a 'right'. I think the government (if the majority of its citizens agree) should help those down on their luck, but nobody has a 'right' to anything that is earned from the labor of others.

[umcwb]

23. A question....

"a. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of any resident of the United States to engage in meaningful labor as a means of providing for themselves and their families, and to receive compensation that provides for a quality standard of living, and is equal and/or of comparative worth."

Is there a minimum amount of work that has to be done "to receive compensation that provides for a quality standard of living"?

[umcwb]

24. Kick for an answer to my question. n/t

[MSchreader]

28. That's something that could be handled

Through the "appropriate legislation" clause. I am certainly in favor of a sliding scale of wages and hours, that can be set according to need of the economy.

But to some people here, that smacks of a rationally planned economy.

Martin

[umcwb]

30. Well,

Is it possible to have a "right" if you have to do something in return? In order to have the rights that we have in the BOR, we simply have to be born. If a living wage were truly a right, then one would recieve a living wage simply by being born.

On edit: spelling mistake

[MSchreader]

34. I subscribe to a very concrete and real interpretation

Of the Declaration of Independence, when it says that all people are entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". By dint of birth, all people have these rights -- hence the term "unalienable". Speaking concretely, yes, someone would receive a living wage by simply being born -- its direct form would be in increased compensation to the parent(s).

Martin

[umcwb]

36. At what point would the parents cease receiving extra compensation...

for that child? At that point, would the child have to start working for his right?

[MSchreader]

46. When the child, now young adult (or just plain "adult")

Is old enough to work and live on his/her own.

Martin

[umcwb]

51. So he would,

in fact, have to work for his rights? It would no longer be an inalienable right, as it would be dependent upon his performing a service?

[MSchreader]

54. You have the right to a decent job

And to be compensated properly. Just as you have the right to free speech. Exercising that right is entirely up to the person. If they choose to not exercise that right, that is their option.

Martin

[umcwb]

57. I don't think that comparison works.

Exercising free speech does not require any action on another person's part. The right to a job requires that another person gives up part of his property to you. Can you have a right that places a burden on another? Are you, in fact, against private property rights?

[MSchreader]

64. All rights require accepting responsibility

Exercising free speech does not require any action on another person's part.

Wrong. It requires many actions on the part of other people. The most immediate ones that come to mind are tolerance of differing opinions and a measure of self-control in terms of speech (e.g., no shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater). So, yes, the comparison works. You're quibbling over forms -- which is typical for the type of political entity you are.

The right to a job requires that another person gives up part of his property to you.

The right to a job requires that the capitalist RETURN some of the capital he stole from working people to them.

Can you have a right that places a burden on another?

See my response to the first point, since "actions on another person's part" are, in reality, "burdens".

Are you, in fact, against private property rights?

I am against individuals stealing the product of collective labor.

I am not against you owning your car, your house, or your personal possessions.

I am for the people who collectively created those items -- that property -- deciding how they are distributed.

If that makes me "against private property rights", so be it.

Martin

[umcwb]

68. Read my above post....

Take it easy...

on edit: spelling mistake... oh, and changing what I said....

[Yupster]

26. MSchreader

You asked for criticism of your document. Many of us have given it to you. This is not unusual. People on these boards will often vet a letter they are planning to send in and ask for criticisms before they send it in.

What is unusual though is usually after they get the criticisms, they say something like "thanks for the time taken to reply. I've gotten some good ideas and I'll use some of them."

This is the first time I've seen someone ask for criticism and then attack the people who criticize anything.

Kind of like when my wife says "I don't like my blue dress, do you?" When I say, "I guess not," she says, "so you think I'm fat don't you."

[Terwilliger]

27. he was probably looking for intelligent response

not self-flatulating piffle

[MSchreader]

29. Thanks for taking the time to reply, Ter

I got some good ideas, and I think I'll use some of them. :evilgrin:

Martin

[Terwilliger]

32. I got some good ideas, too

most white men are piteous self-indulgent fools who are trying to get something for nothing and call it "capitalism"

I'm about to move to France

[MSchreader]

35. Don't do that, Ter

Stay and fight. We could use a comrade like you here.

Martin

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. White

How the hell do you know what race anyone is here? Is there something in the profiles I missed?

Personally, I'm black (well, cholatey at least) and I find many of these proposals ridiculous.

[Terwilliger]

41. cholately?

chocolately...do you consider yourself edible?

I know what race white men are because they're the ones who advocate the most restrictions against anything they don't see as being in their interest. Its usually very easy to spot. I would think you'd see it too. Oh, I forgot! You're muddle!

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Depends

Right now, my girlfriend hopefully would consider me such.

[Nederland]

39. Critique

The thing I can't help noticing is that while you have created a very long list of things that people have a right to receive from the government, you have not specified how you will pay for them. I assume that your tax rate would be fairly high compared to current taxes, but how high do you think is fair? What percentage of people's income do you expect to be under their direct control and what percentage will be under governments control?

In an ideal world, "in the name of freedom", a person has a right to 100% of the income that is generated by their labor. While I recognize that to be an impossible ideal, it should represent a goal to strive for, shouldn't it? In my mind, one measure of how much freedom I have is to look at what percentage of my income I have direct control over and what percentage the government has control over. If government ends up taking 90% of my money, how free am I?

This presumes of course, that you haven't gone full blown Marxist and done away with money entirely...?

[MSchreader]

48. The tax plan, in my opinion,

Is an excellent example of the "appropriate legislation" needed to support this.

I assume that your tax rate would be fairly high compared to current taxes, but how high do you think is fair? What percentage of people's income do you expect to be under their direct control and what percentage will be under governments control?

That is something to be worked out. But I will say that the policy would be weighted strongly in favor of working people -- e.g., no one who makes less than $46,000/year pays taxes -- by shifting the tax burden on to the shoulders of those who have hoarded the wealth of this country for themselves.

Martin

[zoidberg]

70. But who is going to be left with 'hoarded wealth' under your plan?

Your plan would last at most a generation. After that, the acculumated wealth in this country would have already been redistributed to pay for everybody's 'rights'. And since there would be severe penalties for any type of investment, the capital stock of this country would begin to be depleted, causing everyone to be poorer.

Nobody responded to my earlier point about rights. If alien ships came tomorrow and blew up every building, factory, plant and field in this country - people would still have the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights (free speach, freedom of press, right to bear arms). But none of your socialist rights would be possible.

[JohnKleeb]

40. sounds good they deserve such a thing

[pasadenademocrat]

61. states vs feds

The main problem I see is that you limit what congress can do, but you don't imbend the rights affirmatively, meaning that states could then pass laws contrary to what the congress is limitied to.

I'm not sure if I am reading it wrong, but that's my two cents

[MSchreader]

69. I think I see what you're saying

I do think you're reading it wrong. If I am interpreting your understanding correctly, you are looking at the use of "Congress shall make no law...". That is taken directly from the original formulation used in the Bill of Rights. The meaning is that, since Congress represents the highest legislative body of the United States, it cannot abridge these rights. Likewise, the State governments, which are considered subordinate to Congress in the federal system, cannot abridge these rights.

I hope this clears up the issue. If not, please post again.

Martin