Posted by: Boston Bravery | June 3, 2010

What I Stand For In Under a 1,000 Words

Yesterday I received the comment, “Rather hear what you have to offer and your opinions than vicious attacks on what you fear” from Ivan John D. Sopko. My first thought in response to this comment was if you read through all my post would get what I stand for. Okay not really. It would be based on what I am opposed to and would take a great deal of time to get through them all and to come to a conclusion. Given all the information and the comment I agree it is time to put together the basics of what I stand for. Then redirect my blog posting again to show what I disagree with and offer a better solution.

I will break it down my beliefs in to three main areas, political, economic and social.


My post titled DINO’s would give a great start. Like I stated there I don’t see a two party system affectively represent over 300 million Americans that are spread out over 9,631,420 square kilometers. Both parties need to be eliminated. A party cannot affectively represent a group of individuals politically. The Founding Fathers were opposed to political parties which George Washington summarized the best, “They
serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community.

Simply put our elected officials should represent the people that elect them not a party.

We also need to get rid of corporate influence over our representatives again elected officials should represent the people that elect them and nothing else. My overall view of where are system is broken is that the balance between private or corporate and public is out of balance the only thing our current government is concerned about is pleasing the corporate bosses not the people. Our federal representatives spend at least 5 hours of every day fundraising and not representing the people. The best way to move forward is public funded campaigns where media outlets are required to give legitimate candidate equal access. This would also change how media covers politics because the media outlets wouldn’t be so focused on income from political campaigns.

If things were set up my way there would be no political parties, lobbyist or corporate financing of campaigns. All officials would be elected by primaries that everyone that met the office requirements and whatever other requirements the state had like collecting signatures could run. If no one received at least 51% of the votes there would be a general or “run off” election between the top two vote getters. In the legislative branches for the all powerful committee chairmanships would be a vote of the entire body. This of course is a simplistic overview and many details would follow.


In simple mix capitalism is the best summed up in Tea Party Movement Equals Putting Yourself First. It is all about balance some industries flourish bested in well regulated capitalism while others are best under a socialistic structure. Again a very simplistic overview, every time we have tried to leave it up to the market our economy has failed. The best we can hope for under a complete free market system is wild swings of “good” times and “bad” times. Good times we would all be fully employed and happy and bad times we would experience high levels of unemployment. Many of the changes I suggest under my political believes would significant affect our economy.





The state should not try to legislate morality. Is this completely possible? No, we need some basics to have a society. We should be always try to attain our ideals of everyone able to purse happiness, health and life. Does that mean we will always agree what constitute that god given rights? Again No. Should we as the government ban goods that we have determined unhealthy or determinable to the individual? This is where things again get fuzzy. There are definites like poisons that cause immediate death. Or we need to regulate are foods so that we know that what we are eating isn’t going to kill us immediately. But with both of these items there is a question what is poison for example? Alcohol could be considered a poison which by the way my doctor recently mentioned. Banning alcohol was tried and didn’t work. We currently ban many recreational drugs now though most reports say that it is working either. To me what would be best instead of trying to ban everything that could be bad for the individual we should use the tobacco model. Basically regulate it, heavy taxation and education. Many of the problems on our Southern border are the drug trade. If we were to legalize drugs, regulate them and tax them we would remove the criminal eliminate in the drug business. Then use the tax monies to educate about the use of drugs and treat those that abuse drugs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: