American Justice Party Platform

American Justice Party Manifesto

Platform:
Human Rights
All humans regardless of nationality, race, creed, sexual orientation, gender,
physical and mental ability, age, religion or lack thereof are equally entittled
to life, personal posessions, freedom from persecution, clean water, food to eat,
healthcare, education, shelter from the weather, due process of law, freedom
from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to avoid testifying against
themselves or another, and (once the age of 18 or greater) to marry any
consenting person who is also of the appropriate age.

Healthcare
The American Healthcare System will be based on the system of Japan, with
low co-pays for most of the population, and no co-pays for the military, disabled,
and emergency personnel. This system will be the only option, but will cover
everything that your doctor considers necesary. This system will cost less to the
American taxpayer than the current system by more than $40,000,000,000.

Education
Education is a Human Right, and as such will be provided free of charge from
Kindergarten to a Bachelor's Degree. A student who wishes to further their
education beyond this point, but cannot afford to pay for it may apply for a grant
to cover the total cost.

Science
Sciences are paramount to advancement in our society, and the Sciences shall be
supported by the State. Students entering college will have to have mastered the
foundational topics such as lab procedure, the scientific method, the writing of
research papers, pre-calculus, and introductory courses on physics, biology, and
chemistry. In adition, those with a degree in a scientific field will have access to
research funding from the government with priority given to ecological, medical,
engineering, and physics projects of merit.

Infrastructure
America's Infrastructure must be repaired. But further, much of it requires re-design.

Trade
Trade is absolutely necessary for our modern lifestyle. Should we become a hermit
nation, we will quickly run out of lithium among other things. This should be avoided.
We need to form mutually beneficial trade relations once again (the current president
having damaged them severely).

Environment
The enviroment of our planet is in dire straits because of our past and current actions.
Pollution of the oceans, fresh water, and air are destroying the Earth... the only home
we have ever known, and the only place which we will be able to live for the foreseeable
future. We must take swift and decisive action to mitigate climate change and clean our
oceans and rivers. We must partner with and learn from the experiences of other nations.

Jobs and Labor
Americans are hard pressed to make ends meet. Our wages are too low to live on, our
bosses are often cruel or indifferent to our troubles, and we have no time for family.
Therefore, all companies will be restructured so that all workers in a company own
equal shares in the company. Therefore, they will have income from shares as well as
hourly pay. The companies will organize themselves into democratic councils of all
workers at the company. There will be no bosses or CEOs. Those who do not work do
not get to vote in the council. All company power will be weilded by the workers themselves.
All new companies will use this model.

Taxes
Tax rates will be adjusted to reflect affordibility. Those more able to bear the burden will be taxed more than those who are less able.

Agriculture
For the sake of national security, we must depend on our own farms for the bulk of our grains, vegetables, and fruits. In addition; for the safety of our drinking water, existence of beneficial insects, and the health of our people: we must ban the use of inorganic pesticides and strictly limit the use of nitrate fertilizers. Farmers will recieve free education in how to farm without these.

Energy
Energy in this era must come from renewable and inexhaustible sources rather than fossil fuels. We would explore the options for hydro, tidal, wave, solar, and wind power. We would also like to see fuels for vehicles made from plant sources.

Religion in Politics
We do not believe that political decisions should ever be made on a religious basis.

Gun Control
We are in favor of an armed and able populace. However, we also believe that those with a history of violent crimes should not posess guns. To avoid the deprivation of the right of self defence, we are in favor of people carrying swords and knives of any length.

Borders? Security from foreign opponents?

wayne fajkus wrote:Borders? Security from foreign opponents?

Other than a shift away from meddling in other countries' internal affairs, things are fine as they are.

Ryan Hobbs wrote:

wayne fajkus wrote:Borders? Security from foreign opponents?

Other than a shift away from meddling in other countries' internal affairs, things are fine as they are.

Are you saying the American Justice Party is ok with other countries meddling in the United States' internal affairs?

And the United States government violating international agreements in order to eject asylum seekers?

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Ryan Hobbs wrote:

wayne fajkus wrote:Borders? Security from foreign opponents?

Other than a shift away from meddling in other countries' internal affairs, things are fine as they are.

Are you saying the American Justice Party is ok with other countries meddling in the United States' internal affairs?

And the United States government violating international agreements in order to eject asylum seekers?

No. But I am not well enough informed on these subjects to come up with a policy on them myself. Give me a few days to research. I don't have a tv and wasn't aware of this going on.

Who pays for all of these "entitlements"?

The founders of the USA felt that citizens were only "entitled" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, everything else they have to EARN.

You want a roof over your head?  Work for it.  You want food on the table?  Grow it, hunt it, or buy it.

Communism sounds great in theory, as long as you ignore the human element, but once you add humans to Communism, Communism fails EVERY TIME.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:Communism sounds great in theory, as long as you ignore the human element, but once you add humans to Communism, Communism fails EVERY TIME.

Which part made you think it was communism?

How would it work, exactly? Would the government come in and take away companies that people have built and give their value and control over their direction to the employees? Is that not theft?

I think that is one example of the kind of thing we've seen historically in transitions to communism, which is where the earlier comment may have come from.

As with many of the other platform points, there is no thought to transition from what is to what is being sought. Without a clear path out, it's all just so much wishful thinking, and a surefire recipe for economic chaos.

Transitions to new ways of doing will most effectively occur with a balance of removing payouts to old interests, while offering new incentives to those who, say, choose renewable energy, sustainable building materials, and embrace employee shareholder programs that share controlling interests.

I don't think now is a time for new parties. I think that in this moment in time, anyone who doesn't support the current administrations stampede towards totalitarianism needs to support the clear other choice. This, in my opinion, is the time to start the swing of the pendulum to the other side, from way far off the right side of the scale.

I think it's time to shift the paradigm, such that the GOP disintegrates and splinters. At that point, when there's not unified insanity as the monolithic opposition to Progress, can the Left think about different flavours of Leftist thought, and perhaps move towards a multi-party system, where perhaps coalition governments are possible, or indeed, necessary to form government, as there would be more representation from all parts of the spectrum.

I think the Left needs to unite behind the Democrats until the GOP falls. Anything else is essentially like Canada having our three-party system, with a single Centre-Right party comprising roughly half the population, and two or more Centre-Left parties competing for the other half of the electorate.

-CK

Peter VanDerWal wrote: You want a roof over your head?  Work for it.  You want food on the table?  Grow it, hunt it, or buy it.

What about those unable to do so - the very young, the very old, and the disabled?  Humans exposed to the elements may die, therefore, depriving them of shelter deprives them of life.  Humans without food die, therefore, depriving them of food deprives them of life.  

What about the Founding Fathers' desire to "promote the general welfare"?

The notion that big companies answer solely to their owners'/stockholders' bottom lines is accurate, but taking all that value and giving it to the workers immediately would cause chaos and most likely a coup. Applying the proposed laws to new companies only would probably place them at a fatal disadvantage, unless there were some method of gradually transitioning and pressuring existing companies to make it advantageous to switch modes. Thinking of actual ways to create incentive for a transition via regulation would be more useful than just proposing a completely unworkable sudden shift.

There are cooperative businesses out there that are already worker owned. Some are fairly large and international. Benjamin Franklin founded a cooperative insurance company that is still around today if I'm remembering correctly.

So if through a democratic process it was decided to move in that direction there are successful models of business that could be followed.

One advantage of that type of system is unions would also no longer be needed for collective bargaining. It would be a very different system but there are examples of it in the USA and other countries.

Finding a way to democratize the work place seems like a worthy cause to me since that makes up 40+ hours of a lot of people's lives every week. We are more engaged in the places we work than we are with the governance of our country, state, city, etc. At least for most people that seems true.

Is the existing cooperative model or one put forward in the mentioned party platform a good one to scale up? Doubtful but it seems like if we could go from monarchy to a representative democracy we could figure out something better than the current large business model. Might seem impossible but I'm sure people viewed the work the founding fathers did in the same light before they wrote and successfully implemented the constitution.

Here in this part of Texas our electric company and phone company are cooperatives owned by the customers.

Ryan Hobbs wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote:Communism sounds great in theory, as long as you ignore the human element, but once you add humans to Communism, Communism fails EVERY TIME.

Which part made you think it was communism?

The part where everyone is "entitled" to everything regardless of whether they work for it or not.

The part where the government would take property away from people who own it and worked hard to develop it, and give it away to people who didn't.

How is this not communism?

Note: I am all for preventing pollution, etc.   But I don't see that as an "entitlement"  Saying people are "entitled" to clean drinking water implies that it is ok for companies to pollute our waterways, etc. as long as they provide clean drinking water for people.
I'm also in favor of developing a better public health system, not so much because I believe people are 'entitled', but because it makes good business sense.  Healthy people are more productive.

Yeah I'm a capitalist.  I didn't go from living homeless on the streets of Vancouver to earning a 6 figure salary because of hand-outs.  I WORKED for it, I EARNED it.

I never understand why some people get so upset about the word entitlement. Entitlement is also in capitalism. One is entitled to appropriate compensation for one's work. I think that the big issue is that people disagree what "entitles" somebody to have something.

Entitlement is not something for nothing, it's something for something. Charity can be something for nothing, but often even charity isn't. Even charity often has strings.

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote: You want a roof over your head?  Work for it.  You want food on the table?  Grow it, hunt it, or buy it.

What about those unable to do so - the very young, the very old, and the disabled?  Humans exposed to the elements may die, therefore, depriving them of shelter deprives them of life.  Humans without food die, therefore, depriving them of food deprives them of life.  

What about the Founding Fathers' desire to "promote the general welfare"?

Personally I am not apposed to helping out those who genuinely need it, although I think individual charities can better provide that sort of thing than the government.  Historically speaking the one thing governments are good at is wasting money.  The bigger a government becomes the more wasteful it becomes.  That's why I'm in favor of smaller governments that only provide essential public services.

When we start saying that everyone is "entitled" to a roof over their head, free food, free water, free everything, etc.; then you end up with people that sit around all day playing X-box while everyone else has to work twice as hard to support them.

If you insist on having the government provide basic necessities then at least require the people work for them.  Babysitting kids so others can work, cleaning up trash along the highways, something.  Now they are not "entitlements"  now they are earned benefits.

Daron Williams wrote:There are cooperative businesses out there that are already worker owned.  

I have worked for companies that were cooperatively owned by the employees.  However, NONE of them gave everyone an equal share just for working there.  You earned shares based on how long you worked there, and/or were offered the opportunity to purchase shares in the company.  

Peter VanDerWal wrote:

Ryan Hobbs wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote:Communism sounds great in theory, as long as you ignore the human element, but once you add humans to Communism, Communism fails EVERY TIME.

Which part made you think it was communism?

The part where everyone is "entitled" to everything regardless of whether they work for it or not.

The part where the government would take property away from people who own it and worked hard to develop it, and give it away to people who didn't.

How is this not communism?

Note: I am all for preventing pollution, etc.   But I don't see that as an "entitlement"  Saying people are "entitled" to clean drinking water implies that it is ok for companies to pollute our waterways, etc. as long as they provide clean drinking water for people.
I'm also in favor of developing a better public health system, not so much because I believe people are 'entitled', but because it makes good business sense.  Healthy people are more productive.

Yeah I'm a capitalist.  I didn't go from living homeless on the streets of Vancouver to earning a 6 figure salary because of hand-outs.  I WORKED for it, I EARNED it.

You don't qualify for inclusion in the capitalist class. You do qualify for petit bourgeoisie. Basically a capitalist wannabe. However even you must admit that without your employees, you would not have near the pay you get. Because the whole point of capitalism is to siphon surplus value off of the workers in order to increase the wealth of the people at the top.

I remember calculating the national debt as a dollar amount per working American. This number is probably similar to the cost of 2 years of college.

I calculated what that number was, then thought who should pay it . The numbers never worked. A small business with 20 employees , the owner would have to pay $700,000 to cover his employees. His business just got wiped out. As you move up the ladder to the super rich, its probably a similar wipeout because the number of employees grow.(bill gates, etc). Then you have the 15% (whatever the number is) of federal, city, state employees who dont have the super rich up top. Those have to be absorbed back into the business owners to cover. Everyone is wiped out.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:
When we start saying that everyone is "entitled" to a roof over their head, free food, free water, free everything

I don't recall anyone here saying "free everything," just "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  As I pointed out, depriving people of food (and water) and shelter will likely kill them, thus depriving them of their inalienable right to life.  People who have the bare necessities of food, water, and shelter don't have enough extra to sit around playing x-box (where do they get the x-box?) but they might not die.  I'm not convinced that medical care might not also fall under inalienable rights, since some people will die without medical care.  I'm still not totally sure about national health care, except I'm pretty sure a nation which can afford a massive standing army (which the Founding Fathers never intended) can afford to provide the basic necessities of life plus some basic medical care to all people in the nation who are otherwise not able to obtain these things (the very young, the disabled, the very  old).

"Which part made you think it was communism?"

The word Manifesto in the first sentence. The word bourgeoisie about 17 posts in.

Look at this, THINK about it:

"Human Rights
All humans regardless of nationality, race, creed, sexual orientation, gender,
physical and mental ability, age, religion or lack thereof are equally entittled
to life, personal posessions, freedom from persecution, clean water, food to eat,
healthcare, education, shelter from the weather, due process of law, freedom
from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to avoid testifying against
themselves or another, and (once the age of 18 or greater) to marry any
consenting person who is also of the appropriate age."

Every person in the WORLD is entitled to free food, health care, education, AND shelter, in the USA.

And how do we pay for this:

Oh here we go:

"Therefore, all companies will be restructured so that all workers in a company own
equal shares in the company."

The reason that communism, fascism and other forms of socialism don't work is that once everyone gets free stuff, they quit working. Well we could always tax the rich, the rich just got stripped of everything they had.

And where do we get our food from, Oh here we go again:

"Farmers will recieve free education in how to farm without these."

The farmers in Stalinist Russia received education from the communists. Every one of them and their families were slaughtered because those kind of people were too independent to trust. And then their replacements were slaughtered, every one of them, because they couldn't produce the food to feed the people. Not enough beets, not enough sausage for the people, let alone steaks for the communist aristocracy.

Look what happened when America elected a communist as president, even before then. The closer we got to the election the worse the economy got. HE got inducted, Trillions of dollars was hidden from our economy by America's business. Uncountable trillions disappeared from the economy because the usual haven for money internationally was suddenly another suspect communist country. Trillions went into cash. The printing presses ran full speed printing paper money. Gold and silver went to heights that may never be seen again. Millions lost there jobs, those facing retirement lost large parts of the retirement they worked their lives for because the stock market collapsed. Those who retired then will never recover that money, every month for the rest of their lives they will remember what communism brings.

And then magically the people thru out the communists and they revolted in the streets, burned buildings, turned over cars, beat people. Another brown shirt revolt. Impeach the guy, he ain't no Commie like us.

I have never found that people stop doing stuff just cause they aren't getting paid in the conventional sense. People are constantly searching for purpose in life, and work is one of the things that provides this. People often won't do what you want them to do at any given time, but it's not the same thing as not working.

House of the Dead by Dostoyevsky explores these ideas. How even in bleak siberian prisons, prisoners strive to make a place for themselves.

And fascists and communists are not the same thing.

John Duda wrote: ...once everyone gets free stuff, they quit working. ....

Do they?

I didn't.  

Now that I have a roof over my head and don't have to worry about my next meal, everything is different.  I am able to choose a profession instead of working hand to mouth at minimum wage jobs.  I work more, do a better job because I'm not plagued with malnutrition caused illness, and I volunteer my extra time doing things that I feel are good for the community where I live.

I've seen others do exactly the same.  Once the struggle for food and shelter are removed, the people I know want to contribute to society.  They do a better job because they can choose one that they excel at.  They work harder because they aren't struggling with health issues or other ailments caused by sleeping in the rain or not eating for days at a time.  


So... everyone?  

maybe there is a different way to phrase that that doesn't paint every single human on the planet with the same brush?  

capitalism

Ryan, I don't see your definition of capitalism anywhere.

The focus on how people have misused the system is only useful as a cautionary tale, a guide of what not to do.

If the economists involved calculate things like the social and environmental good into the margins, the net profits would be smaller, but the employees would be taken care of first, as would environmental effects.

I think universal health care is the best option, and probably pharmacare and universal dental, and probably universal insurance, using the government's buying power to secure the best prices.

Taking care of people's health and wellbeing allows them to work towards their own American dream. Also, I feel that with things that are basic requirements for life in society or legally required, government should make sure there's no price fixing among the handful of providers.

I think the focus on an armed populace is out of date and socially tone-deaf, considering the ongoing mass shooting crisis.

Also, wasn't the 2nd amendment written in the context of organised militias? And what would civilian arms do against a hostile standing army?

-CK

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote:
When we start saying that everyone is "entitled" to a roof over their head, free food, free water, free everything

I don't recall anyone here saying "free everything," just "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  As I pointed out, depriving people of food (and water) and shelter will likely kill them, thus depriving them of their inalienable right to life.  People who have the bare necessities of food, water, and shelter don't have enough extra to sit around playing x-box (where do they get the x-box?) but they might not die.  I'm not convinced that medical care might not also fall under inalienable rights, since some people will die without medical care.  I'm still not totally sure about national health care, except I'm pretty sure a nation which can afford a massive standing army (which the Founding Fathers never intended) can afford to provide the basic necessities of life plus some basic medical care to all people in the nation who are otherwise not able to obtain these things (the very young, the disabled, the very  old).

The original post stated
"All humans ... are equally entittled to ... clean water, food to eat, healthcare, education, shelter from the weather... "

Note: "entitled" to have them,  not entitled to earn them.

Lots of people currently on "welfare"  play X-box, own the latest iPhones, etc.  I have no idea where they get the money for them, but they certainly don't have a job.  Heck, I see people out on street corners begging for money while talking on their iPhones.

Ryan Hobbs wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Yeah I'm a capitalist.  I didn't go from living homeless on the streets of Vancouver to earning a 6 figure salary because of hand-outs.  I WORKED for it, I EARNED it.

You don't qualify for inclusion in the capitalist class. You do qualify for petit bourgeoisie. Basically a capitalist wannabe. However even you must admit that without your employees, you would not have near the pay you get. Because the whole point of capitalism is to siphon surplus value off of the workers in order to increase the wealth of the people at the top.

I didn't say I was part of the "Capitalist class" whatever that is.  I said I was a "Capitalist" I.e. someone who owns capital and/or someone that believes in capitalism.
"Definition of capitalist
1 : owning capital
2 : practicing or advocating capitalism "

"Capital
Noun:
the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.
an accumulated stock of such wealth.
any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth."


As for whether or not I'm "petit bourgeoisie" I guess that depends on how you define "lower middle class"
I guess according to Obama and Hillary that would include me since I make a fair bit less than the $250,000 a year that they define as "middle class"
If you define lower middle class as those who earn a median income or slightly less...well I make considerably more than median income.

Oh, and I AM an employee, one of the lower paid ones in my group.

Stacy Witscher wrote:I have never found that people stop doing stuff just cause they aren't getting paid in the conventional sense. People are constantly searching for purpose in life, and work is one of the things that provides this. People often won't do what you want them to do at any given time, but it's not the same thing as not working.

If you haven't experienced people who sit around and do nothing all day while they collect handouts, then perhaps you might consider traveling to a big city and doing some volunteer work.  See how people who believe they are entitled to free stuff actually act.

Yes, sure some people will be grateful and will work to better themselves.  But many others will sit around and bitch because they aren't given more.

I have found entitled people from all walks of life, rich, poor, white, black. It seems to be more of a mindset than anything else. But it isn't most people at all. I live in an urban area. I worked in SF for years. I've been exposed to plenty. I don't think that's the issue. I don't think that it's a singular issue. Some people have mental health issues, others physical disabilities, still others have just been beaten down for so long that they just have given up hope. I try to stay in the solution. It seems to me that's the permaculture way.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:
"All humans ... are equally entittled to ... clean water, food to eat, healthcare, education, shelter from the weather... "

I think all humans are entitled to those things.  "Education" can mean learning, not just schooling.   I learned most of what I know outside of school, through the process of living (aka "life").  I think all humans are entitled to life, which they can not have if they are killed by poisoned water, starved to death, or die of exposure.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:Heck, I see people out on street corners begging for money while talking on their iPhones.

Perhaps they make their living by begging, which enables them to buy an iPhone.  I think begging would be a tough way to earn a living -  I wouldn't want to try to do it!

But then I think being an employee is a tough way to make a living; I haven't been one in about 24 years.  I prefer self-employment.

(I have a problem with the whole "earn" versus "make" a living. "Earn" implies being worthy of, something many of the wealthy, having obtained their wealth by inheritance, may not be.  Someone who stands in the sun all day begging may earn their living more than these folks who sit in the air-conditioning watching the stock ticker.)

(Ugh, too much editing!)

Peter VanDerWal wrote:

Ryan Hobbs wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Yeah I'm a capitalist.  I didn't go from living homeless on the streets of Vancouver to earning a 6 figure salary because of hand-outs.  I WORKED for it, I EARNED it.

You don't qualify for inclusion in the capitalist class. You do qualify for petit bourgeoisie. Basically a capitalist wannabe. However even you must admit that without your employees, you would not have near the pay you get. Because the whole point of capitalism is to siphon surplus value off of the workers in order to increase the wealth of the people at the top.

I didn't say I was part of the "Capitalist class" whatever that is.  I said I was a "Capitalist" I.e. someone who owns capital and/or someone that believes in capitalism.
"Definition of capitalist
1 : owning capital
2 : practicing or advocating capitalism "

"Capital
Noun:
the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.
an accumulated stock of such wealth.
any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth."


As for whether or not I'm "petit bourgeoisie" I guess that depends on how you define "lower middle class"
I guess according to Obama and Hillary that would include me since I make a fair bit less than the $250,000 a year that they define as "middle class"
If you define lower middle class as those who earn a median income or slightly less...well I make considerably more than median income.

Oh, and I AM an employee, one of the lower paid ones in my group.

I define "capitalist" based on Das Kapital, as one who owns means of production and siphons surplus value off of the working class. I was mistaken about you. I think the fact you make six figures while being firmly in the proletariat is kind of amazing. It is very uncommon though. I have been lumpen proletariat or ordinary proletariat my entire working life and never made more than $9,000 in a year in my entire life. I have started probably 15 businesses. They all failed except the pottery business I currently have. I have worked in lanscaping, as a dishwasher, in paving, in janitorial, and as a cleaning person for rich people besides my own businesses. I was also in the work program while locked up in the state mental hospital following a suicide attempt. I didn't have to pay for that, for which I am grateful, because the amount of time I was there at 2 grand a day would have destroyed my finances.

Interesting thread.  

Personally, I'm not a big fan of scary words, even though I sometimes use them and will likely throw them around a bunch too in my post.  When the words communism and capitalism come up, for instance, people think in black and white terms, and this is not at all helpful, and seems in fact to cause more confusion and lack of understanding than anything productive.

That said, let me explore it a bit with the definition that Uncle Google gives me.  

Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Communism: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

While capitalism might be a economic and political system, it should be noted that it is also a theory, and, while it has been applied successfully, it is not without serious flaws if it's taken to the extreme (which happens, a lot, and is why some people have problems with it).  Communism is pretty much a theory only however, since in general, in practice, the supposed class war that Marx insisted upon seems to end up with a different set of bosses that rise from the middle class and military.  I think that it is important to note that the democratization of the work place is a foundational aspect of communist theory, while the ownership of the business sector by the state is communism in practice.   That is an important distinction, in my mind.  

As such, when viewing with these definitions, my thinking is that the AJP platform as outlined by Ryan Hobbs tends to be more like the definition (but not practice) of communism, especially since it seems to be in direct opposition to capitalism (which tends to be how we view communism in the black/white dichotomy); the whole the workers rise against the bosses thing.  

The primary problem in the platform, the way I see it,  is in the appropriation of business.  It creates a shit storm that is unlikely to settle out very nice and clean.  The problem is also the 'big red menace' scare tactics that have been driven into all of us in the west (particularly all of us who lived with the shadow of the Eastern Bloc until it's fall) that make any socially oriented government or policy be painted with the same bright scary red brush, so even if it was going to go smoothly, the people (especially the bosses and their buddies) would be too scared to walk that road.  Oh no, they have social ideas, they must be communists!  We can't have that.  

Shamefully, all the rest of the platform has the possibility of flying if it's presented right via the socially oriented/minded, but the whole thing will be thrown out with the bathwater because of the serious communist type infraction of democratizing the work place.   I'm not an American, and so maybe I should keep my yap shut, but the way I see it, the breakdown of business out of the owner's hands and into the worker's hands will never happen as a result of a political decision in the USA. ...not without a coup de t'etat, support of the military, marshal law, and the resulting upheavals (of which we have many examples in our global past) that would likely be a part of it.  The breakdown of business into the workers hands can only happen via the creation of such businesses independent of political coercive force, and as stated in other people's posts there are examples existing in the U.S. and elsewhere in the free world of capital gain companies which are owned by the workers, or are cooperatively owned by the people who are directly effected by them.

The problems with businesses can be many and complex, and I am all for the potential of democratizing such things as much as possible.  The failure of trade unionism (despite many great gains for all workers in the free world)  in many regards is due to the same problems associated with the capitalist businesses in general, in that they tend to be somewhat self serving, and use the workers for ulterior motives/personal gain.  That is essentially what also has happened in most communist models, and the peasants are still peasants.  That is not to say that this model would not be able to break that cycle if it was enacted properly.  It's more saying that since the displaced big business guys are also very connected to the military and the existing political and economic capitalist structure, any move to do this politically will be disastrous.

The social political structures that are inherent in the problems that the American Justice Party seem to want to address are the result, in my way of thinking, not of capitalism, but of a way of thinking and a way of forming policy that enables a certain type of capitalism and a certain type of social structure that inherently rewards elitists hierarchies or in the least a brutal form of individualism taken to mean 'every man for himself'.        

Before I explore that,  I'm going to swing somewhere else since another scary word has been tossed around:   FASCISM:  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

When it comes to the word fascism things tend to be a bit more straightforward by definition (and for every definition of it, that comes up, there are none that are not scary to me), but since this word is pretty much directly associated with the axis powers of WW2, and their associated issues, I tend to use the term Totalitarianism to describe the fascist condition as it relates to many things.  The form that communism took in the Soviet Union, for instance, tended to be more totalitarian than it was a model of true communism as Marx intended or (I should say ) he thought was the natural succession of social order after the capitalist state.    

Totalitarianism:   A system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Totalitarianism is often viewed as a direct opposite of democracy, but even the fascist (totalitarian) leader B. Mussolini was elected democratically, and democracy as it pans out, is at it's worst the result of a majority gaining the power over the minority(s), and often has similar resulting social problems associated with elitist hierarchies.      

All government policy that tends to not have as it's primary function the betterment of the total population's state of being and way of life, tends toward totalitarianism and also elitist hierarchal power structures or (as I will explore briefly in a moment) nihilism, and as I said in the last paragraph, this often includes democracies.  Canada and the U.S., and Britain and France, and most or probably all other democratic so called free countries all have many policies which I would consider to be totalitarian in nature.

The other loose rabid dog in the room that most people tend to ignore until it is way too late is Nihilism: The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.  

The problem with Nihilism is that it tends to exponentially breed a way of thinking that enables a person to do whatever they please without thought of social or environmental consequences.  The problems that many people associate with capitalism are actually problems associated with nihilistic tendencies.  Total nihilism in practice is rare, as most with nihilistic tendencies tend to believe strongly in the reality of the material world.

Anarchy (NOTE:  I'm giving the second definition, since I believe the chaotic dysfunction element that has defined anarchy is actually describing nihilism) : Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

What anarchy embraces is the dissolution of the state, by releasing the overlord from all aspects of a person's life.  It is assumed that nihilism is not involved and as such the very act of anarchism requires that a person take personal responsibility and form social networks by choice which are supportive of responsible leadership/mutual aid in community.  This is how local government could look; that is: without the rigidity and oppression of having people in charge who are simply power hungry and self serving.  Unfortunately most people are thinking of nihilism when they hear the word anarchy, and as such it is less likely that creating a system based on social thinking in this regard can go under that title.  Many social institutions that we regularly take part in or associate with have anarchist foundations.  

As a social anarchist, myself, I tend to think that most of the policies outlined in this platform/manifesto tend to make sense, and many of the points in the platform could be enacted without altering the business model (structural capitalism) much, but the business model itself... it must take it's own course, in my thinking.   Altering the business model, without the business owners consent, is a pretty hard sell anywhere, and in the U.S., as I mentioned, I'd say that it's not really in the realm of possible without a civil war, and even then, it is very unlikely that the existing elite and the standing army that associates with it will loose that war over an armed militia with such aims as the overthrow of the business elite.  

Yikes.  That's a lot of writing.  Sorry.

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Peter VanDerWal wrote:
"All humans ... are equally entittled to ... clean water, food to eat, healthcare, education, shelter from the weather... "

I think all humans are entitled to those things.  "Education" can mean learning, not just schooling.   I learned most of what I know outside of school, through the process of living (aka "life").  I think all humans are entitled to life, which they can not have if they are killed by poisoned water, starved to death, or die of exposure.

In order to give those things to people who haven't worked for them, they have to take then away from someone that has.  If I recall correctly, you have some land.  How would you feel if the government took away your land so that they could build shelters on it and give it away to people that don't work?

This is what you are advocating.  
Or do you think these kinds of ideal should only apply to other people?  I.e. it's alright to take away someones property as long as it's not your property?

After all, Land is the only true wealth.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:...to people that don't work?
...

I would be more interested in discovering why the people don't work.

If my dog doesn't start laying eggs, do I call it lazy?  

If my chickens refuse to grow wool, do I kick them off the farm?

Everything I've seen suggests that given a job they are good at and an environment they thrive in, all animals, humans included, work hard.

In this thread, there seems to be a theme that humans are naturally lazy.  This is our natural state.  If our basic needs are met, then we do nothing at all.  I've never seen this in humans or any other animal.

I've seen unhappy goats, who laze around all day doing nothing but eat and sleep.  Take these same goats, and give them companionship, an interesting environment, a job (transforming invasive plants into milk and soil fertility) and they work harder than any goat raised in ideal conditions.

I've seen humans stuck in situations where there is no escape - in hopelessness, they fall into a depression and listlessness because they can't see a way out.  But take that same human, put them in a situation where they feel secure, healthy, and give them a job that matches their innate skills; the person transforms into a very productive individual who works harder than people who came from more secure backgrounds.  


Perhaps people don't work because we are asking something of them that doesn't fit their nature.  Perhaps if we take that same non-working human and take the time to discover what they are good at and provide them an opportunity to do that task, we might be surprised how willing they are to work hard.  

I envy the sheltered lives many of you seem to live.  

As I said, I have been poor.  I've lived on the streets, collected food stamps and sold plasma to get by.  I have SEEN first hand how people on welfare live.
Yes, many are embarrassed by having to take handouts and work hard to better themselves.  However, many others revel in it.  They do nothing productive.  They complain constantly about how they aren't given more and some of them occasionally go out and steal from others.  
When given an opportunity to do something, anything, productive they come up with excuses.

The fact that you folks believe that these people don't exist simply amazes me.

P.s. Dogs as an example of an animal that works hard?  Seriously?  When given food and shelter the average dog spends 14 hours a day sleeping.  The average dog (not a farm dog, or work dog) spends the other 10 hours a day doing NOTHING productive.   Ok, maybe it will dig up your flower beds out of boredom, or chew up your shoes.
Unless their human makes them do something, most dogs will either sleep or play all day.

Exactly what kind of "work" does your dog choose to do on it's own?  Not something you've trained it to do, not something you make it do, but something it chooses to do all by itself?

That's a great example peter.

A house dog may very well do nothing.  Is that the fault of the dog?
Give a dog an environment where it's expected to work and understands (is trained in this case) what it is expected to do, and dogs love being productive members of their pack (community).  Livestock protection dogs need no constant interaction with humans to do their job.  

I think your example shows my point beautifully.  Not all dogs are lazy.  Their environment and treatment make them that way.  Their nature is to look to the pack, especially the head of the pack (in the case of a domestic dog, that pack leader is the human) for their roll in life.  If the head of their pack discourages work, then they won't work.  


You're not the only one in this thread who has been homeless and living on the streets.  It seems we come from extremely similar situations.  It's fascinating that we see humans so differently.  


There may be truly lazy humans in this world.  Humans that have no desire to work or do anything productive.  I have yet to meet one of these humans.  I've met people who appear this way, but given a change of situation, are actually more productive than people who are raised in an ideal situation.  This leads me to the conclusion that most humans are not lazy.  

Besides, if all humans in a group are lazy, then we would have to accept that members here are also lazy, and that would be against publishing standards.  It is always good to be careful when using negative stereotypes.  

I'm not saying that all humans are lazy, although I do believe that is our "natural" state.  I.e. without training and encouragement, without NEED, most humans will choose to play rather than work.

We work hard to overcome adversity.  But if there is no adversity, if we are simply given everything we need to survive, then there is little, if any, 'need' to work.

We don't live in an ideal world.  We live in a real world.  In the real world, things seldom fit our beliefs of 'ideal' life.  

Human history proves my point over and over.

Look at tribes that live in the rainforests, where they don't need any heat, were food is abundant and grows all around them.  Do they build brick and mortar houses?  No, they build huts with the minimum amount of effort necessary to keep the rain off them.  They don't organize themselves to build farms (they don't need to), they don't build roads, they don't build almost anything.
They don't do anything other than the minimum amount of work needed for day to day life.

If someone else were to build their huts for them, and bring their food to them, they would be quite happy to do nothing but play all day.  Why would they work if they didn't have to?

Why do you believe that humans 'want' to work if they don't have to?

I don't define "work" so narrowly. For me, lazy is doing nothing. Most people don't like to do nothing, it is boring.

Myself, I think it's not that communists and socialists are necessarily lazy. It's just a matter of incentive. At every turn there's an impediment to do anything except punch the time card at whatever workplace one gets sent to. There's a subtle shift to a little less production. Nationwide the subtle shift, becomes a tidal wave.

Peter VanDerWal wrote:
Why do you believe that humans 'want' to work if they don't have to?

Do I think someone would stand for 8 to 10 hours a day, serving other people while being verbally abused?  No, I don't think many people would choose that kind of work.  Then again, some people love working retail.  

I think humans have the drive to create and participate in the world around them.  Find work that matches their individual drive, and yes, they will work.  Isn't this what permaculture advocates for plants and animals?  We see time and again that things thrive in the right environment - I don't believe that humans are so separate from the world we live in that it doesn't apply to us.  

Looking at myself.  I don't take a vacation because there is nothing I would rather do with my time than my work.  My work fulfils my soul.  It turns out I'm very good at it as I've turned down some pretty impressive job offers from the biggest names in my field.  What I do in my spare time is exactly what I do when I'm at work.  I could never have acquired these skills or applied for this job when I was living hand to mouth.  It was the security of having a roof and regular meals that allowed me to pursue this.  I don't have to work, in fact, the government discourages it for my situation.  But I fought to be allowed to work even though I could have lived on the government handouts by doing nothing more sitting on my butt all day.  

Look at tribes that live in the rainforests

okay

The Yanomami tribe was studied extensively by Nepolian Changnon and is often touted as one of the last tribes to encounter the modern world.  We studied this extensively in university.

They didn't build brick and mortar houses because
1. the materials weren't available to them
2. they build a whole new village every few years.  

They spent a large amount of their time preparing the food they gathered.  Although it was plentiful, not everything was available year 'round, so foods needed to be preserved and others needed complicated preparation.  

They farmed a large chunk of their diet.  They cleared new land for agriculture every 2 to 4 years so that the old fields could be left fallow and return to the jungle.

They managed the forests to encourage food creating trees.

They had paths in the jungle but didn't need roads because they didn't use cars.  For long distance travel, they used boats.  Nature provided them with roads/rivers.  

In their spare time they pursued cultural crafts, teaching lore and skills to younger ones, creating medicines, art, music.  

They don't do anything other than the minimum amount of work needed for day to day life.

If this was a natural human tendency, then we wouldn't have moved beyond subsistence living.  We wouldn't have great works of art and culture.

In my study of anthropology, we read a lot of ethnographies.  Not one pre-industrial culture I read about had the predilection to not work.