Both the Democratic and Republican parties have immoral platforms for the same reasons: They both try to force the entire country to abide by what they believe to be right and wrong and not allow different opinions, life-styles, philosophies and economic policies to exist let alone thrive. This is a serious problem. I’ll start with the Democratic party.
The Democratic party’s main problem comes in the form of forced charity. Whether the rich want to or not, whether it is justified or not, the Democratic party members want to force the rich — regardless of what party affiliations that they may have — to make ever increasing charitable donations to the poor by raising taxes. They use such idiotic, immoral and irrational statements such as, “the rich can afford it,” or “they didn’t make their money on their own, so why should they be allowed to keep so much,” or “no one is an island,” or “the majority of the people voted for it, so who are you to say that you don’t want to pay,” or “this is how democracy works; if you don’t like it vote to elect politicians that will reduce your taxes,” or “that’s the price of living in a democracy,” or “it’s the law, so you should shut-up and pay the higher taxes,” or “if you don’t pay the poor will take it from you anyway,” etc.
The point is that the Democratic party wants to use the allure of getting “something for nothing” to get their candidates elected/re-elected and hold on to power. The specifics of how and why the above statements are ridiculous have been hashed in previous posts, so I won’t go into it too much here, but here’s the summary of my rebuttal:
1A) Why is it that the rich didn’t make their money on their own, but the poor did? If both had help from our teachers, the military, police, fire and EMS people and other infrastructure service people then we should all pay for their services equally, since we all benefit roughly equally. On the other hand, if a liberal/socialist (libs/socs) is going to argue that somehow the rich are the only ones that had help from these people then it should be obvious that libs/socs have more serious problems and a lot of explaining to do.
1B) If the rich didn’t make their money on their own then the implication is that they are in possession of stolen money, so why aren’t the rich all in jail?
1C) Also, these people that supposedly only helped the rich to make their money, didn’t they all get paid for their services?
2) First, affordability is a matter of opinion, and, second, if affordability is used as a means to determine human interaction then we are in some serious trouble. For example, since Tiger Woods has 14 major championships and there are a lot of pro golfers that don’t have any, shall we ban Tiger from participating in all major championships, since he can afford to not win anymore? Another example, since the vast majority of people have two kidneys and can afford to live with only one, the next time there is a patient in need of a kidney, shall we force someone with two kidneys to donate one to the person that needs it? Last example. If one is making over $3,000,000 per year then to them someone making over $15,000,000 per year can easily afford to pay more taxes, and it’s probably a true statement. And, for someone making over $600,000 per year, the person making over $3,000,000 could easily afford to pay more in taxes. And, to someone making $125,000 per year, the person making over $600,000 per year can easily afford to pay more, and to someone making $25,000 per year, the person making $125,000 per year can easily afford to pay more taxes. And, to someone making $5,000 per year, someone making $25,000 per year should be able to pay more taxes than they do, etc. So, where does it end? What is the cut off and why that number? Therefore, affordability can never and must never be used as a way to judge the validity of human interactions.
3) Just because we vote on it, it doesn’t make it right or moral! If we vote to bring back slavery who would say that that was the right or moral thing to do? Would anyone? A more elegant way to put it: To borrow a quote from another, democracy should not be about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
4) Just because something is a law, it doesn’t mean that it’s right or moral. Our history is replete with laws that were so immoral that we have banned such laws from ever existing again: Slavery, anti-suffrage, Jim Crow, etc.
5) Stealing is stealing is stealing, whether one votes to do so or not is irrelevant.
6) First of all, history has shown that poor people don’t revolt because they’re poor. They revolt because there is no justice. And, there is no injustice when we allow people who make a lot of money — legally — to keep as much as they can. Regardless, if the poor do revolt and steal money from the rich then the poor should be arrested and thrown in jail for theft, sedition, insurrection, vandalism, and rioting, among other charges.
7) There is nothing wrong with ALL of us paying our fair share of taxes for the services that the government is best suited to deliver: Self-defense, infrastructure and education. And, fair share should be equal percentage, if not equal dollar amounts. Equal dollar amount is the most Just because all of us — rich or poor — would benefit roughly the same from these three services.
8) Taking money from rich to subsidize the poor is prejudiced and biased against the rich in favor of the poor. This is most definitely unconstitutional as our government should regard us and treat us equally.
9) Just because everyone in the same group is treated the same way, this does not make it constitutional, let alone moral. For example, if we were to bring back slavery of blacks, it doesn’t make it right just because we’d treat all blacks equally. Therefore, so called progressive taxes are immoral. In fact, the so called progressive taxes are the imposition of indentured services on the rich, since they are being FORCED to subsidize the poor.
10) It may be a good thing for a rich person to voluntarily make charitable contributions, but this does not make forcing them to do so moral or Just, no matter the cause.
11) No one can justify the top 10% of income earners paying over 70% of the income taxes at an 18% tax rate, while only making 43% of the income, while the bottom 50% pay only 2.3% of income taxes, while making over 13% of the income. To boot, the poor get the vast majority of the benefits, given that self-defense and infrastructure mostly benefit everyone equally. Think about it: The poor get subsidized for free education, welfare payments, food stamps, medicaid, earned income tax credit, student loans, etc.
12) No one has the right to dictate how another should spend their hard-earned dollars, regardless of whether they think that someone can afford it or not. Think about this: Would you want someone to look at your bank account and tell you how and where to spend your money, including some of it going to “help” others for free? So, if you don’t want that, why do you want to subjugate others to such treatment?
I’m pretty sure that I’ve shown beyond a reasonable doubt that government social programs are immoral. So, I would be very surprised if anyone could come up with a rational argument that would negate my position. The bottom-line is that, on a philosophical level, Democrats are trying to impose their will and moral-value system on the rest of the country, and this is unequivocally wrong, immoral and unjust. On a more “pragmatic” level, Democrats are trying to use subsidies, i.e., use of stolen money, to stay in power. What’s despicable about their actions is that they are using concepts and institutions that are holy and sacrosanct to all Americans, like democracy and Congress, to manipulate the voting public into keeping them in power. Among others, Hitler was a master at mixing in truth, righteous morality and a strong value system with lies and unjust philosophies to get what he wanted too. One of the big things that Hitler sold was the right of the German people to not only exist but to live freely and have land to expand and grow. Who would argue with that? Moving on to the Republican party.
The problem is that the Republicans are realistically no better than the Democrats. They too wish to impose their will and moral-value system on the rest of the country, and this is equally unequivocally wrong, immoral and unjust. However, what they want is practically different than what the Democrats want. Simply put, part of the Republican platform is predicated on imposing judeo-christian morality on the rest of us. Therefore, they oppose gay marriage, abortions, gambling, prostitution, assisted suicide, and other individual choices and, more importantly, individual rights. Again, this is unequivocally wrong, immoral and unjust! Many of these issues revolve around, if we, as individuals, have the right to do with our lives and bodies as we please, as long as it doesn’t harm others — what I mean by harm others is violating other peoples rights — or not. Also, it is a matter of prioritizing rights and understanding whose and which rights supersede others.
Let’s take an example: Homosexuality. However, before we get there, let me make two points. First, I’m not lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Second, the thought of having sexual relations as a LGBT is discomforting to me. In other words, I’m a healthy and happy heterosexual.
So, getting back to the main point, what makes people of the judeo-christian faith think that they have the right to condemn LGBT-oriented people and tell them they are a blight on humanity and that being LGBT is a sin?! This is an absolute abomination against humanity and a shameful blight on Americans and American morality!
First of all, if we are supposedly all god’s creatures then LGBT-oriented people were created by god, so the judeo-christian faithful have no right to judge god’s actions, and if there is no god then they have no right to condemn someone else for their genetic predisposition. Also, that sexual-orientation is a choice is a lie created by the judeo-christian faithful to bridge the contradiction in their so called faith, i.e., that we are all god’s creatures and sexual-orientation is a sin. Please reference the post,”Sexuality isn’t a choice, i.e., no one chooses to be homosexual, but are born that way. That sexuality is a choice is an invention of religious people to avoid looking stupid, again!” at “http://www.undertheconstitutionwithlibertyandjusticeforall.com/2015/05/20/sexuality-isnt-a-choice-i-e-no-one-chooses-to-be-homosexual-but-are-born-that-way-that-sexuality-is-a-choice-is-an-invention-of-religious-people-to-avoid-looking-stupid-again/” for my specific arguments on this particular position.
Second, homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom, which is confirmation that if god does exist then god created homosexuals, since everything is god’s creatures, and if god doesn’t exist, again it is a genetic predisposition that no one has the right to condemn and force the rest of us to go along with the condemnation.
Third, by not giving LGBT-oriented people absolute equal rights, it is causing much grief and misery within that community, something that does not need to happen, and something that is an abomination against human rights! Denying LGBT-oriented people absolute equal rights is no different than white people in the 1950s and 1960s railing against equal rights and status for minorities. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. And those that do oppose absolute equal rights for LGBT-oriented people should be equally ashamed as those people that opposed absolute equal rights for minorities in the 1950s and 1960s!
Fourth, the cruelty of not giving absolute equal rights to LGBT-oriented people is inflicting mental, financial, and physical pain and anguish to good people that need not be and shouldn’t be. For example, there is no legitimate and rational reason for not allowing LGBT-oriented people to marry whom they want. And, separate but equal (marriage versus a civil-union) doesn’t work — it didn’t work for minorities and it will not work for LGBT-oriented people. By not allowing LGBT-oriented people to legally marry whom they choose as a spouse, the federal government can, will and does tax inheritance between a LGBT couple that heterosexual couples don’t have to burden. Another example involves illness. Hospitals do not allow non-relatives to stay with patients under critical situations, which means that if a LGBT-oriented person is hospitalized and in an intensive care unit that person’s spouse would not be allowed to visit or stay with the patient during their most critical times. Also, hospitals will not inform the LGBT’s spouse of status updates because they are not recognized as a married couple. The mental anguish that this causes LGBT-oriented people is unspeakable. No heterosexual couple would ever tolerate such cruelty. Yet, it would seem that the judeo-christian faithful have absolutely no problems inflicting such pain and anguish on other human beings. This is an intolerable and unforgivable sin of the highest magnitude and should be harshly judged and punished!
Yet, the Republican party supports marriage only for heterosexual people and are trying to impose their Six Pillars on everyone else, whether we agree with them or not. And, this is patently not only irrational, but also highly immoral, unjust and inhumane! And, most of all, UNAMERICAN! No rational, intelligent, moral and Just person should ever agree to such an abomination!
In both cases — the Democratic and Republican party platforms — it comes down to whether or not we, as a country, believe that one group, any group, has the right to impose their will and Six Pillars on the rest of us and whether voting on it legitimizes the violation of each individual’s rights? I say that no one, no group, no organization and certainly, no government has the right to impose their will and Six Pillars on even a single individual, whether we vote on it or otherwise. Some have told me that this is an anarchist’s position. Absolutely not, I believe in the existence of and support a central government, while the anarchists don’t and that is more than enough to make me wholly different than anarchists. Others have said that my position is Libertarian, and I would say that that is a fair criticism, but here are the differences.
I’m not an isolationist. I strongly believe that America does have the moral obligation to defend the defenseless, wherever they may be, because we are the most powerful nation in the world, and with that much power comes that much more responsibilities.
I’m also in favor of free trade and free trade agreements, and support the expansion of legal immigration to maintain the creative and innovative drive of this country, but the limited expansion of open and random immigration.
On the economic front, I believe in government regulation of industry, but these regulations must be simplified and made relevant to the modern day economy and, most importantly, these regulations must be wholly focused on ensuring that industry/businesses compete fairly and that every business has the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. And, very harsh penalties for unfair competition should be spelled out.
I also believe that education must be one of three services that the central government must provide; however, we must be careful not to impose one groups view over another. This doesn’t mean that we teach idiotic views such as creationism as a legitimate science, but it does mean that we make our children aware of the disparate views and to respect each others’ beliefs. It also means that we teach our children truth, Americanism, and Justice.
Also, while I do support a balance budget amendment, I’m not in favor of abolishing income taxes, and I do believe that there is a time and a place for government intervention in the economy.
So, let’s get down to the brass tacks: What does the Justice party stand for and why should you, as an American, support the Justice party? What the Justice party represents, in a nut shell, is Justice. If my position isn’t Just then I need to modify my position to make it so. To achieve Justice, I focus on making sure that each individual legally living in the US has the maximum amount of individual rights, is not being imposed on or forced by anyone else in the world in any fashion, physically, financially, mentally or emotionally, have the freedom to live and practice one’s own philosophy — as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people’s rights and doesn’t harm others — but also obligate each adult individual to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a mature, thinking, rational human being. Some specifics follow:
- The Justice party also supports a limited government that ensures the protection of every individual’s inalienable rights, freedoms, life, liberty and the right to pursue their happiness, and provides only three services: Self-defense, infrastructure and education.
- This means that all social programs must be privatized, progressive taxes abolished, and at least a flat percentage tax introduced where each income earner pays the same percentage.
- The Justice party also believes in the intervention of the government in the economy, if and only if the systemic risk paralyzes the private sector, which inhibits the recovery of the economy to its normal state.
- We also support rewriting the Constitution of the USA as written in my book, “The New Constitution for Modern America,” to reflect our philosophy in support of inalienable rights, individual freedoms and pursuit of Justice.
- The motto of the Justice party is: Equality isn’t always Just, but Justice applied equally is always fair.
- The Party supports equal and absolute rights for LGBT-oriented people.
- The symbol of the Justice party will be a bold eagle with a scale in its beak, a donkey in one claw and an elephant in the other.
- Seek out a constitutional amendment to make it illegal for the government to treat different groups differently when it comes to rights, services provided or imposing restrictions on its citizens;
- Seek out a constitutional amendment to make privileges based on ability;
- Add a constitutional amendment to include inalienable property rights, including the right to one’s own hard earned money;
- Add a constitutional amendment to make deficit spending illegal;
- Also, although implied, seek out a constitutional amendment to make explicit our freedom to choose not only a religious belief, but also freedom to choose political affiliation and philosophy without prejudice and interference from the government or other institutions, groups, organizations, businesses, charities, individuals, and the like;
- Rewrite the IRS tax codes to vastly simplify and eliminate loop holes, subsidies, eliminate corporate taxes and other non-uniform applications of tax collection, and, as previously mentioned, to introduce a flat tax to cover for only self-defense, education and infrastructure – the end result is that the tax code should be no more than a few pages and tax returns shouldn’t be more than 3-5 pages, including instructions;
- Look to immediately change the pledge of allegiance, swearing-in oaths in court and for the military and our currency to eliminate all religious references and references to any god;
- Drop all minority programs;
- Drop all subsidies;
- Eliminate all quotas, racial or otherwise for our citizens and legal permanent residents;
- Change the tax codes so that there are no inheritance and gift taxes among direct family members;
- Eliminate taxes for members of the armed services;
- Change capital gains tax to 100% for holdings of less than 1 year, 80% for less than two years, 50% for less than 3-years, and 0% for greater than 3-years — this provision is conditional upon policy objectives;
- Mirror the tax code for dividends and interest payments to match capital gain taxes — this provision is conditional upon policy objectives;
- Make sure the federal government always runs a balanced budget or have the politicians arrested and thrown in jail according to the number of years served in congress with provision to allow for fixing the problem should spending unexpectedly increase above revenue, but without increasing taxes;
- Look to make stimulus spending an exception and force the administration to seek a Supreme Court ruling every time a stimulus spending program is proposed;
- Seek to monitor and record all conversations of all politicians and their staff or aides, anywhere in the world wherever and whenever they talk to each other, lobbyists, or their constituents with provisions for expulsion and jail time should they violate this law;
- Make congressional representative and senators, president, governors and state legislative members compensations correlate to long-term unemployment, interest rates, and inflation, while cutting overall compensation by half, drastically reducing the retirement package and withholding part of the compensation over a 5-year period so that it can be tied to long-term unemployment, interest rates, and inflation;
- Make congress, president, governors and state legislatures use the same healthcare plan as the ones that the rest of the federal or state government employees use;
- If no one runs for political office, a lottery will be convened to pick a random person from the populace to serve in the political office that is vacant; for this individual, the compensation will be quadrupled, retirement package will be far more generous, but their term will be limited to 12-years, and they must still abide by the monitoring rules and balanced budget requirements;
- Restore the right to bear arms or eliminate the 2nd amendment completely;
- Either increase the voting age to 21 or drop the drinking age to 18 – it makes no sense that 18 year olds have the right to vote, but not the right to drink; I don’t know about anyone else, but I think the right to vote requires more maturity, intelligence and knowledge than drinking, so I think the current situation is ass-backwards;
- Largely abolish morality laws and make it illegal to have morality laws like prostitution, drug use, anti-abortion, DWI, anti-gambling among others;
- Eliminate conflicting or confusing business laws;
- Eliminate all business subsidies, unless it can be demonstrated that it is in the best interest of every individual in the US;
- Make it illegal to make laws that restrict any consensual sexual behavior like sodomy and oral sex;
- Make it illegal to make laws that restrict gay marriages and other forms of marriage based on sexual orientation or preference;
- Allow gay marriages and accord them with the same rights and privileges of heterosexual marriages;
- Eliminate statutory rape laws if the sex is consensual, particularly among people of similar age;
- Look to privatize all charity functions that the wealthier segment of society currently support like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Unemployment, Earned Income Tax Credit, et cetera;
- Eliminate civil laws and reduce criminal laws to one line: “Stealing or violation of other people’s rights are punishable by jail terms or death,” but providing sentencing guidelines;
- Immediate dismemberment of the male sexual organ for rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse of children, followed by the death penalty;
- Immediate elimination of the female sexual organ for rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse of children, followed by the death penalty;
- Eliminate all unnecessary cabinet positions, departments, congressional offices, aides and other government functions;
- Create a watch dog to monitor all corporate behavior and provide service and product reviews, independent of all political influence;
- Insure immigration of people that are well-educated, creative, innovative, smart or wealthy;
- Set up abortion as a legal right for all women, once and for all;
- Institute tort reform, so that punitive damages aren’t restricted in the case where wrong-doing is found, but also allow juries to determine, if a lawsuit is frivolous and assess damages and punitive penalties to both the lawyers and their clients for bringing frivolous lawsuits;
- All judgments, settlements, and arbitration results to be made public and subject to review from independent and unaffiliated jurists to discern the fairness of the judgments, settlements, and arbitration results;
- Immediate withdrawal of all corporate involvement in every way from the judicial branch, whether it concerns the election of judges and attorneys general, selection and nomination process for judges and attorneys general, involvement in any court cases other than their own, unless called in as a witness;
- Turn all insurance businesses into not-for-profit or mutual insurance companies that work for the benefit of policy holders and no one but policy holders;
- Finally, seek a constitutional amendment that makes Justice the primary and sole motive of the US government, and requires all state and municipal governments to honor the same; and
- Expeditiously and efficiently as possible eliminate all states and state governments and functions.
This list covers most of what the Justice Party would seek to do, but I’m sure objectives will be added and subtracted as necessary. Regardless, all objectives must adhere to the principles of Justice and only Justice. Also, any references to state governments will be eliminated, if states are abolished.
As anyone who has a mind that has not been addled with political propaganda — liberal/socialist or conservative — can see, the platform of the Justice party is rational, moral, Just and inclusive. Also, a thoughtful person would recognize that the Justice party platform is based on inalienable rights, individual freedoms and full choice. These are the things that make up Americanism: The philosophy that all real Americans should believe in, adhere to, and practice. Because, people who believe in this platform would not look to force others to their will, can live harmoniously with each other, would be tolerant, but not necessarily accepting, of other people’s opinions, would be free to live by and practice what they believe in, help to protect and defend all of the inalienable rights, individual freedoms and choices and fight for Justice at all costs, anywhere, for anyone, and with anyone. The Justice party platform is also very moral, respectful, accountable, honorable and values open and honest communications. We look for every individual to be honest, ethical and radiate strong integrity, and advocate for the harsh punishment of those that flaunt ethical and honorable behavior and lack integrity.
Does this platform not appeal to you? It should, if you truly have the right Six Pillars. Remember that no one has the right to impose their will, way of life, beliefs or philosophy on anyone else. And, because we don’t all believe in the same things, it doesn’t mean that we are immoral or that society will descend into chaos. The key is to be rational based on universal inalienable rights, absolute individual freedoms, and full choice. If we can all agree to basic principles then we can build on these principles and this will lead to a more rational, respectful and peaceful society. Of course, with anything else, getting everybody to agree to the same assumptions is the key. I believe that our Constitution is a great starting point, but it is incomplete and somewhat unnecessarily vague, which is why I’ve re-written the Constitution in my book, “The New Constitution for Modern America.” I believe that this version of the Constitution corrects the flaws, inadequacies and vagueness of the current Constitution and correctly outlines universally acceptable inalienable rights and freedoms, and provides every individual with maximum choice.
The point of this post is that both the Democratic and Republican party platforms are immoral and we, as Americans, must find a new way. However, this new way must be developed in conjunction with a new way of thinking, and this will not be easy. Despite this, we must change and do so rather quickly or we WILL descend into chaos, because America is like a rudderless ship. We’ve lost our Six Pillars, and has been replaced with a superficial, pretentious and immoral philosophy driven by short-term thinking. Therefore, the time has come to re-invent who we are as Americans and discover the new timeless American philosophy. I believe I have provided for such a philosophy.
For more, please read my books, “… Under the Constitution with Liberty and Justice for ALL,” available at http://www.CreateSpace.com/3978962 and also available on Kindle, and “The New Constitution for Modern America,” available at http://www.CreateSpace.com/4281897 and also available on Kindle. Please don’t forget to rate this post. Any comments or questions are welcome and can be left for me on this blog, @Ahmedinejahd on Twitter, on Facebook or via email at AlexAhmedinejahd@Yahoo.com. Thank you in advance for buying my books, and rating this post. And, thanks for visiting my blog; I hope you get an opportunity to read my other posts. Have a great day!