Comments to Readers

2009-9-14 03:30:00

John K says:

"To begin this journey into solutions that work, I cannot escape the question as to whether we are speaking of applying solutions to the present Representative Republic, or applying the solution of replacing that form of government with something approaching a Direct Democracy. This is a foundational issue, as it directly affects the substance of the solutions that we might apply."

JJ:

Any changes I suggest toward greater democracy are to take place within the framework of our present Republic and Constitution. Of course amendments may be added and there may even be a constitutional convention, but I do not suggest replacing the present Constitution with a new one.

Now if I were in charge of creating an entirely new nation, I would then suggest a new Constitution that would take the best out of the old and add some extra safeguards of freedom.

Molecular Politics, as I have written it, can develop within the framework of our present system. Allowing the people a direct vote on some controversial propositions can also take place within the current framework.

Our current Constitution has proven to be the most successful in history so we should be cautions about making any major changes. Miner changes which reflect the will of the people is a much more safe direction.

I've been thinking about term limits and concluded a statement on them needs to be one of the 95 Theses. I was reluctant to add this as I thought they might not be needed if Molecular Politics is achieved. On the other hand, if Molecular Politics is not achieved in this generation, then that may be the next best thing. Then if we achieve both, no harm will be done.

Duke writes:

"I don't know where you stand on any of these issues, but here are some freedoms I'd be in favor of:

"1. All US military personnel should be free to consume alcohol responsibly when on leave regardless of local drinking age laws (in the USA at least). If a kid is old enough to die for his country, then he's old enough to have a beer."

JJ:

Agree 100%.

Duke:

"2. Freedom of adults to join in marriage unions as they see fit, without any outside authority dictating what does or does not constitute a marriage, and without threat of future annulment by legislative or judicial decree."

JJ:

I think gays as well as polygamists should be able to make commitments of marriage and have them respected and not be hassled over doing this. They should be free to introduce their partner(s) as their spouse. I do not see getting an actual certificate as being a freedom issue for if I couldn't have one myself I do not see much of a change that would happen. The liberals in the Sixties [1960's] I think were closer to the truth when they said that a marriage certificate was just an unnecessary piece of paper.

Duke:

"3. Legalization of marijuana. You might be able to talk me out of this, but my general impression is that marijuana is not significantly worse than alcohol or tobacco."

JJ:

I support the legalization of all drugs. In the past I have called this the Drano Principle. Drano is indeed harmful, but I do not think we need a law telling us we cannot drink it. Instead we just need to educate people on what is harmful and what is not.

I also support channeling a good portion of the money from the war on drugs to education and rehabilitation.

You may be right in correcting me on my negative response to the local guy on the forum. Those who have been with me a while know how patient I am to those who disagree and even attack me but those in this political forum I am on make the past attacks on this forum seem tame indeed. I am continually called a racist, hypocrite, liar, robot, Hitler, sociopath, and many other things by people who think they are on the more loving side of the political equation.

In the case you mentioned the guy struck such a low blow that I thought I needed to word my reply as strongly as possible without breaking the rules of the forum.

Such a response is a judgement call and a rare response of this type from me.