This could probably be under philosophy or politics, I chose politics because I think it is important to consider making decisions involving politics. I will number my points so if anyone has any challenges or questions to what I am saying it will be easier, after that it will just be me babbling. 1. Humans determine value based on what is reasonably or emotionally important to them (I would argue it is more often very biased toward the latter). 2a. Value is ultimately the trade of one humans time/energy for another humans time/energy, in other words, our time/energy is the fundamental currency. 2b. This can extend into relationships, good or bad, which may tie into the concept of 'love thy enemy', otherwise the person you are hating is quite literally vampiricising (black magic) your value (time/energy). This is happening to an extreme degree with Trump, both love and hate. 3. The concept of justice hinges on these two premises; that humans have free will and that there is an objective morality that we are working toward. Some may argue against that but very few who would (argue against that) actually live as if their belief is true. When claiming Trump or Hillary committed a crime you are assuming a moral violation and an injustice, unless you are resting your case on legality being your moral framework, which only requires the stroke of a pen to make murder (war), kidnapping (imprisonment), theft (debt, taxes, inflation) etc, legal and therefore moral. You often hear corporations and politicians in hearings repeat the statement that everything they did was legal or that they didn't do anything illegal. This should be very alarming for the reason stated above. So what is the goal of justice? We often see it represented as a scale, because we want things to be even, fair, balanced, in harmony. If somebody steals a can of pop from you, suing for $5,000 is not justice but if someone uses your credit card for $50bucks and causes $20 in fees and 4hr of your time to get it straightened out, they should pay $70 plus the value of your time spent rectifying the issue. If we do not seek justice in the latter scenario, we are, in a way, contributing to injustice, not only did that person create an imbalance against you, but it triggered reward centers of their brain that 'i can get away with getting shit that somebody else worked for', and it doesnt become a matter or right and wrong, it becomes whether or not they can avoid justice. If we truly want justice, we need to consider that especially in our political framework. Imagine if Lockheed wasnt getting 85% of its revenue from government contracts and had to produce things in the free market that people actually valued? They employ over 100,000 people! Most people know the absurd waste of money the f-35 has been, NO corporation in the free market would survive that sort of bullshit because the dime would be on them and not on government 're-allocated assets'. The Pentagon has spent $20 trillion that cannot be accounted for, where in the hell did that value go and do you not want justice for that? That money came from the value of millions of peoples time/energy and has disappeared, if that isnt black magic and wrong, I dont know what is. So what can we do to try to balance the scales and turn this ship around? I am interested in well thought out ideas that you can and will support and defend, not ethereal whims of emotion and irrationality please. This is for those who realize we need some change, perhaps radical change, but we dont exactly know where our efforts should go and how we can most effectively use our time.
1st idea: Taking money out of politics? 2nd idea: A whole entire NEW congress which actually supports the American people. 3rd idea: No more life terms for people in positions of political power, they all get only 8 years max being voted in.
1. I am not sure money is the problem in and of itself, it seems that the disconnect between money and value might be the issue here. For instance, big pharma can spend a lot on lobbying and campaign finance because they have secured legislation that impedes competition, thereby allowing them to to overcharge for their service and use that extra money to buy off politicians. Do we really think they wouldn't find a way to use their money to influence politics/legislation in other ways, perhaps even less transparently? Pacs, super pacs, shell corps, other proxies? Idk, which is the purpose of this discussion! 2. If corporations could not donate to campaigns etc, I suspect they would use that money to start fake grassroots movements and promote some creative social engineering. In other words, I dont know how we could get good people in Congress. Fundamentally, government is an artificial entity, like any entity, it will do what it takes to survive, ask JFK. 3. I definitely understand the logic behind this, but I am not sure if it is ultimately sound. The premise is, I think, that it will impede corruption by continually changing who holds the office, or at least if one is corrupted they will not be able to remain in power for too long, but at the same time it would prevent good people from being able to stay in office. If the ratio of good/bad officials was 50/50 if wouldnt have a net benefit, and the ratio is in favor of good officials it would be a detriment, if in favor of bad officials, maybe the institution needs to be revamped? But, what we are doing is not working, I suppose we have to start somewhere, it would be nice to iron out the most prudent move before the moves are made though. We definitely need monetary/currency reform so our value isn't stripped before we get our dollar.