- “Basic Income Economics.” http://en.minguo.info/book/panoramics/basic_income_economics_parts_1_and_2.
UN Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) and 465 (1980) both condemned the settlements. Rex. 446 stated “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Likewise, in 465, the Security Council called upon Israel to “dismantle the existing settlements.” Most recently, in February 2010, a resolution was introduced and supported by 14 members of the Security Council, “reaffirming that Israeli settlements (including East Jerusalem) are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. It also demanded once again that Israel immediately and cease all settlement activities. The U.S. was the sole dissenter, thus vetoing the resolution.
Elitists are terrified of direct democracy and want to pretend the public has no idea what is good for themselves. Men like Friedrich Nietzsche characterized what he perceived to be slave and master mentality and clearly had a very sinister “master” mentality himself.
Again, people know what’s good for themselves overall. If they make a mistake, then they suffer and learn their lesson. Looking at the world right now, it’s obvious people who call for elitism have absolutely no idea what they are doing and never have.
If some people do not care one way or another about a particular issue, all they have to do is indicate that somehow and those who do care can decide. However, minorities cannot just assume others do not care. Such things must be formally indicated.
If people don’t feel they understand an issue, they can always do research, ask somebody they trust, etc. A healthy, educated, and well informed public should be able to make correct decisions for themselves. People who think they are SO much brighter than everybody else just need to find a way to explain their thoughts/plans/ideas to the public.
All things must be accepted by the general public—not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.
Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.
I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things. Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.
One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.) This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people. If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.
Another idea is to not even have formal academia. People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts. People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes. If they do not, their creations will flounder. It’s as simple as that.
I’ve never heard of anything dumber than anarcho-capitalism which opposes democracy and the current state system, but thinks all property/wealth gained under the current, unethical system should be preserved even after it is abolished. Many use the terms “voluntaryism” or “anarcho-libertarianism” to mask a system solely revolving around rich people unfairly owning everything and the majority having no ability to reclaim the earth as free, voluntary association.
In their minds, the rich have the right to defend unfairly acquired wealth using machine guns and personal armies, but the majority using democracy to reclaim property they never consented to conceding in the first place is categorized as “theft.”
I was completely wrong when I said there was a split in the left. These phoney-leftists opposing democracy have one basic argument: “As long as you leave rich people’s stuff alone and don’t use democracy to take back what rightfully belongs to the public, you are free to do whatever you want.”
(Note: This is especially targeted towards those who think direct democracy should be curtailed on their behalf.)
For me, Israel should have never been created. The Palestinians are not descendants of those responsible for the Jewish-Roman wars that occurred in that region roughly two thousand years ago.
Furthermore, it’s pretty obvious that Aboriginals can prove that they are the direct descendants of the original inhabitants of the Americas. They have a far greater claim to taking back their original land.
I think it’s interesting how such obviousness completely slips under the radar. People who consider themselves “the responsible and enlightened men and women of society” are suddenly nowhere to be found when such obvious inconsistencies arise and easily allow the more aggressive and unapologetically illogical voices of society to take over. It’s obvious that right-wing loud-mouths make no sound arguments, yet those who pretend their place in society is to sort out the foolishness of the common person don’t intervene at all when people far less sensible than the common person use the least sensical arguments to justify Israel’s “right to exist” while pretending the Native Americans being almost completely wiped out when the Europeans arrived was just a coincidence.
I’ve seen people using the greater surface area of the Arab nations as an argument for why Israel is the victim. Again, suddenly all the “responsible men and women” just let such nonsense occur despite being more than intelligent enough to know these are not sound arguments whatsoever. Even if a person sides with Israel, they should still speak out against people siding with Israel for reasons they disagree with. Sam Harris who cares so much about logic/reason suddenly doesn’t mind the amount who support Israel for purely Christian reasons. Even if he sides with Israel, he should still voice criticism of people supporting for a reason he is supposed to disagree with.
The Economist suggested a meritocracy where the public votes on more issues, but “responsible men and women” review everything and have final say. What responsible men and women? It’s obvious that many within the political/media/academic/business élite knew full well what Israel was up to and have been intentionally lying and whitewashing the crimes. Are they going to own up to that now that the public knows what’s been happening? Are they going to bear proper punishment the way responsible men and women are supposed to? Or are they going to be as silent as possible, hoping the situation blows over, so they aren’t given the punishment they deserve?
For the Native American issue, even if current Americans aren’t responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, they still need to make amends. If my grandparents stole a painting from your grandparents, that painting still belongs to your lineage. “Enlightened/responsible men and women” should be smart enough to figure that out. But the issue never comes up. “Erudite” men/women will talk for ages and write countless scholarly articles about some obscure philosophical concept, yet, for something so basic and obvious, they suddenly choose to say nothing and let illogic they purport to hate have voice.
Any treasures taken during colonialism must go back to their rightful owners. That’s basic common sense—if you are holding goods your ancestors stole, they still don’t belong to you. But “mature and responsible men/women” who are so much more logical than the rest of us, again, just play dumb and refuse to deal with the issue despite being more than intelligent enough to know what is right and what is wrong.
It’s juvenile and irresponsible to be silent about such things and then make claims that you are one of the more sensible voices of society who need to bar the will of the people and curtail true democracy because everybody else is so illogical, irresponsible, and immature.
If I build a castle on someone else’s land, does that make it mine?