It's all failed! Why? Because we 'elect' people to represent us, instead of representing ourselves. Each congress person 'represents' something like 700,000 people. Impossible! Even if the guy you vote for would represent you, when he loses, you're out. Half the people always lose, and then have to wait in disappointment for years for another chance to potentially lose all over again.
If you want to be lead, then you will always be the slave you already are. If this were to be a movement, let it be a leaderless Leader Movement, where you lead yourself. This may all sound insane, but when you see what this is all about can you say I'm wrong?
Half of the people out there don't even vote. Why? I'll tell you. They already understand that it's irrelevant. There's so many important issues to try and understand, and now we're supposed to study up on all of these different candidates at different levels and try to figure out if they'll represent us. Odds are, not well enough, at best. Most of the people who didn't vote in 2008 likely understand that both McCain & Obama are puppets. If I'm not mistaken, virtually every political poll is formed by polling registered voters. The non-voters likely don't even want to be led to begin with, which is good. If you don't want to be led, then you lose either way. If only we could choose what laws are passed, and what is funded, and what isn't...
Few people even take the time to really understand the issues. Why? Considering what's already been covered, and will be, why bother? If you can't participate directly, and are almost sure to always be disenfranchised, why get all caught up in the drama?
Hardly anyone pays attention to or participates in petitions. Why? Odds are they're irrelevant. Suuure... you can sign a petition, and mail it in, and it goes to the shredder. If people believed petitions would do anything most would be involved. It's hard to find the important petitions anyways. It's not like they're hanging up at the local Post Office.
Few protest. Why? Because it's a rare day that it has any bearing on policy whatsoever. Why go and get shot by various painful devices, by thugs in storm trooper armor, for no reason? It makes no sense.
The US Constitution is flawed. Why? Because even though it did its job over 200 years ago, it still eventually leads to the system and situation outlined above. It isn't specific enough about limiting power, for the modern world. How to upgrade it is what this is all about...
Most congress critters are crooks. Why? Because they can vote themselves raises. Because they can get elected again and again. Because they have to do whatever it takes to get elected again, to perpetuate their own prestige. Because the system inherently involves special interest groups. Because the system inherently has those special interests groups going directly to the congress critters instead of directly to us. Because they don't have to read the legislation, and half of them don't even know how to read the language its written in even if they tried.
Presidents are absolutely corrupt. Why? Because they are a product of all of the above, and the rest of the system built up around DC only allows the corrupt from their ranks. The office of president has too much power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The Supreme Court is no better off. Why? Because the 'justices' are selected by the President, and are 'confirmed' by the congress critters. And on top of everything else, they get lifetime positions. How many justices have you ever heard about getting thrown out for being scoundrels? How many Supreme Court justices can YOU even name (event though they have the most power in the government)
If you confirmed them yourself you'd know all about their names and what they're about.
Elitists and their banks and multinational corporations wield the true power. Why? Because the system is designed for corruptible humans to be 'elected', and then do things whether we like it or not. The system we know today will always build up under this scheme, to where those with power can electioneer the playing field where we get little choice in the end.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy, states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders; and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
Political parties, as we know them, need to go. Why? Because having large organizations inherently leads to the Iron Law. And history has proven that the 2 biggest ones will work together to smash their competitors. Independent candidates can't even get into the debates. If politicians are marginalized then what do we even need political parties for anyways? All we need are philosophies. The more the better. Currently there are only two, oh and some 'unelectable' independents somewhere out there sadly 'embarrassing themselves' by perpetrating their own futility.
Few are willing to FIGHT. Why? Because even if we voted out all of the incumbents, and undid most of the unconstitutional 'laws', it would be no time before we're right back to square NONE.
Basic psychology: People will either FIGHT or FLIGHT, when faced with problems. If they know they have no chance, they'll go back to American Idol to enjoy whats left of the party, like it's going out of style, because it is. If people even stop to think things all the way through, they'll end up realizing it will just go back to the way it was. No wonder all of those 'sheep' 'idiots' out there go into denial. If the most powerful system ever is evil, yet you can't do a thing about it, why messy up your outlook on life in acknowledging it?
What goals can the overwhelming majority even agree on to be worth fighting for, that isn't merely the same flawed system aforementioned? Why fight, and face death, when the pay off isn't as grand for us today as it was for those who fought in the original rebellion? Tyrants won't just hand over power. It doesn't take a genius to understand that, meaning, anyone can see the stakes of trying to truly take the power back will understand the lack of payoff for the risk involved.
Accountability? Nice try! Government accountability is dictated by all of the above, and below. The career politicians, even when failed, keep their jobs because they were 'elected'. And these same cronies are in charge of firing the government employees below them. Take a look at the total absence of reprimands after 9/11 to realize what a joke the concept of accountability is. It's like a kleptomaniac walking into a store, with no cameras or security tags, with only one employee present (that they know, who lets them steal), and only one customer (up at the front counter). Will the thief steal?
Lets go to the point:
All of the problems above have had me 'lost' trying to find a set of solutions, for over a year.
We need a new system that most can agree on. Who disagrees with any of this, and why? Let's find the solution. Without mass scale agreement, any movement is doomed. As it stands, the motions already in progress, currently only divide. If people want to fund global warming related studies, let them. If people want to fund alternative energy research, into breakthrough technologies, let them. If people want to fund the military, let them. If people want to fund abortion programs, or anti-abortion programs, let them. But let not even one of them fund something they don't support or believe in.
The power of mass agreement, and belief in, is potentially more powerful than the solution itself.
The only way to do all of this, that I've ever heard of or thought of, is...
Consensual Taxation (only).
In practice it's technically not a tax, it's more like donating to what you support.
Imagine your 'tax form' being more like a book, a massive checklist of sorts, where you can go through literally all of the various things the government is trying to do, all of the little things we normally get taxed for, all itemized for you to either ignore, or support.
In addition to this, 'Electronic Direct Democracy' could be heavily supplemental. The idea that we directly participate in the legislative process, further marginalizing the positions of congress and office of president. Despite the thread title, we don't necessarily have to "END" these things, but we do need to to marginalize or transform, end the way they operate as we know them. Sure we need a Supreme Court, but the citizens should confirm them, only by overwhelming majority, with plenty of time to wait it out (due process) to ensure that we know all there is to know about them.
I do realize the pitfalls of the traditional idea of direct democracy: MOB RULE. The premise of mob rule is that the 'mob' rules, not the law. The rule of law has obviously failed, because we have a form of direct democracy, where those with the most power, mobsters, RULE, and all they have to do is keep the masses divided over supporting the policies they perpetrate. The Rule of Law isn't properly enough defined by the Constitution, as proven by our situation. And when it comes to the 'dumb' masses, I doubt they would have ratified the 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve Act, and so on. Now that's all most of us have known our entire lives, its no wonder they roll their eyes when we say fiat currency and income taxes are wrong and illegitimate.
One item under the rule of law, which the electronic democracy cannot vote against or over-ride, is the inability for government growth to exceed economic growth.
This has been off the charts for a long time: http://grandfather-economic-report.com/piechart.htm
The US Constitution? It needs to be upgraded. Think of it as a computer Operating System. Having been written in the 18th Century, with this being the 21st Century, the original Constitution we all know is the equivalent of MS-DOS, compared to Windows XP. Anyone familiar with Windows OS's, and how they should work, knows that it doesn't take but a handful of months of online use until it becomes corrupted, needing a HD format and re-installation for it to work at full capacity. In our government, the system needed to be re-installed in 1912. In 1913, it went into worm virus meltdown, and somehow it's still going on today, almost 100 years later. We don't just need to reformat the hard disk. We need to upgrade the PC and the operating system.
So yes, END the US Constitution, as it is today. It's impossible that a document written before electricity was invented could have total relevance today, in the 21st Century. Clearly, it wasn't written with enough detail, and clarity, for it to not be manipulated today. We need a wake up drive. Clearly, just trying to return to the Constitution hasn't been enough.
But the masses are 'dumb'? Not quite. Over 200 years ago most people still couldn't read. Today we have the Internet, and most people can. The catch is getting them to wake up and get involved in research, and reflection, and so on. That little challenge is one of the strong points of all of this!
Re-education? No! Education. People need to understand the psychology and social psychology that is used to manipulate them. They need to have a full on deep insight into concepts of tyranny, and imperialism. They need to know all of the aspects and facets of systems that push systems into the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The dark side of systems of politics and economy, Communism and Capitalism included, are necessary aspects of realization, to not all be self-deluded. We all need to understand these things so that we can all consciously work against them. We need to learn this stuff as children, instead of being preyed upon as children by massive advertising firms bent on manipulating us into being mindless brand loyalists for the rest of our lives.
Revolution? Oh, you mean go back in a circle to the past? No! We need a renaissance. Revolving back to 200 years ago is not such.
Another key example of why its hopeless having people politicians at the helm: They can be blackmailed. Many argue that most politicians have little hope of even making it big unless the elites have dirt on them that they can ruin their careers with if they step out of line. "Closet homos" and all of that.
Under this precedent, it's too dangerous having so much power in the hands of the politicians. If they're controlled then we're controlled its as simple as that. The elites would be pretty hard pressed to blackmail each and every one of us to try and control how each individual votes or what they fund, much like the special interest groups wouldn't be able to do one on one persuasion with every citizen.
I say end political parties because having parties ensures irrational group think blind loyalty. Instead, for whatever role we intend to be tomorrows version of 'politician' should be, that parties are done. Instead, we get a detailed profile page that covers the issues and the 'politicians' philosophies behind each issue.
Just having "two" parties only equates to obscene loyalty. If the Republicans had their wat Ron Paul wouldn't be allowed to claim to being Republican. Arguably, he he to run republican all those years just to have a shot at making the debates if he ever ran again, like he did in '08.
Am I wrong? Why? Do you have better, or supplementary ideas? I truly want to hear them, all. Weaknesses or additional strengths in any of this? I need to hear them all too.