Month: May 2016

If democracy looked like something, it wouldn’t look like protestors marching and chanting “This is what democracy looks like!”

No, it wouldn’t look like that at all.

Protestors should be chanting “This is what a protest looks like!” The democratic party cheerleaders should be shouting “This is what democracy looked like – 100 years ago!”

Time for an upgrade.

Have you ever noticed those that are represented in our ‘democracy’ never have to protest? There is no marching in the streets for tax cuts or financial deregulation. Yet, that’s what keeps happening.

Nobody was holding up any signs to tell the government to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed gambling with bank deposits, but that’s what happened.

There were no bankers marching down the streets protesting for bailouts of their toxic assets facilitated by the aforementioned legislation, but bailouts were provided with bipartisan support.

Pharmaceutical and insurance companies didn’t have to march down the streets to prevent the government from collective bargaining of drug pricing for Medicare recipients. But sure enough, the government stepped right up and made that happen.

Yet, when there was tens of millions of people in the streets protesting against going to war with Iraq, they were all ignored by the government.

There was no organized street protests calling for the creation of Homeland Security, or to pass the Patriot Act, or to retroactively legalize domestic spying, but that’s what happened.

There are no mobs in the streets now calling for more drones to protect us, nor are there protests to purchase more security scanners for airports, but that is what’s happening.

Yet, when protestors occupied streets nationwide for months to protest the lack of prosecutions for the Wall St. crimes that caused the current economic crisis, the government coordinated with local officials in pepper spray sweeps to arrest them.

Face it, street protests don’t work and they never have. Protestors are demonized as filthy misfits by the establishment. Civil disobedience in the form of street protests can be useful for promotional purposes to get some mainstream attention but they are likely to backfire, garnering more public disgust than support.

It is time for protestors to organize and vote. Protesting promotes the conflict-based economy and validates the public appropriations and oppression against them. Which is exactly what those who oppress them want because that is how they make their living.

If protestors want to stop war, prosecute white collar criminals, and create a more equitable society, it’s first necessary to organize with like minded citizens, engage the political system and vote in order to achieve those goals.

Organize to promote a health-based economy. Those who profit from the conflict-based economy, those creating the debt and democratic decay, are a small fraction of the population. The public at large is anxious for a political alternative to conflict, despite what the media might be reporting.

Fighting the status quo is nearly the same as supporting it. That is what they want you to do. The conflict-based economy thrives on enemies. They will provoke you in anyway possible to fight them in order to justify their security expenditures. Don’t believe those who say being arrested is a productive form of activism. The public needs to make the security state as obsolete as possible by being law abiding peaceful participants in the democratic process.

When enough people unite around a platform of law that is undeniably better than what we have, the current law will change and a more democratic society will emerge.

What will democracy look like?

Democracy functioning properly in the modern world would be transparent. Participation would be something we all do as part of our routines, like paying bills. It would be as simple as being informed and making decisions. How we enter our decisions into the interface will be as convenient as the technology allows. Certainly it would be an evolving process to better serve the needs of its participants as determined by their votes.

Rather than researching all of the candidates to choose from, you would enter your preferences and opinions about the issues that you are concerned with into the interface and your ‘best match’ candidates would be filtered from the many choices available. You could then study other issues and positions those candidates are concerned with to vote for a representative that will best represent your viewpoints and well being.

There would be no motivation for voter suppression because in a real democracy the citizenry would have attained a degree of equality that would allow for civility and unity of purpose. In a real democratic republic we would largely all be on the same side and there would be no reason for street protests.

Now, when conflict is a profitable investment for one side of the conflict, the side with the money, and their economic growth depends on them escalating the violence, protestors will always lose. Increased conflict in this environment is a foregone conclusion because it is a “good investment” for those with money to invest.

This is the conflict-based economy which profits from finding enemies like a fisherman profits from finding fish. A democracy profits from the public realizing a collective economic growth. A conflict-based economy benefits private interests at the expense of an adversary, normally another segment of the public.

Persecuting people for profit is not a new strategy. Our history books are full of examples of unjust persecutions of people for the sake of private profits. Whatever motives are declared by aggressive organizations or nations, the quest for money and the power that money brings is almost always the underlying truth of the conflict. Whether the conflict is presented as religious, nationalistic, or anything else, the true motive is never to achieve democracy.

So, we know what democracy doesn’t look like. We can only imagine what it will look like because there’s no believable historical precedent to compare to what is possible now. We do have the technology and the resources available now to achieve one. But, we don’t have the political will or the educated electorate necessary to make it happen. Maybe if we begin to visualize what a real democracy could look like, by describing it and defining it, the chances of achieving it someday might improve.

In the ongoing campaign against voting, one half-truth gaining notoriety amongst pundit entertainers is the notion that the constitution doesn’t include the “right to vote”.

This is the same type of argument that could be made about other self evident functions in society, like using a public park, or a swimming pool; “The pool rules say ‘no running’ and ‘no diving’ it doesn’t say you can swim in the pool.” You could make that argument, but we all know what the pool is for.

The same holds true for the constitution. The right of citizens to vote is self evident. You can’t have a Republic without the public being able to vote for representatives. Yet conventional wisdom is being shaped by media professionals repeating the mantra that the constitution doesn’t include the right to vote and that the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic.

A constitutional Republic was chosen by the founders because it is the form of government that is the most representative of the public. It is the most representative form of government because it utilizes the democratic process to achieve public consensus. The democratic process also helps to prevent perpetual incumbents from depriving citizens of their ‘right to vote’.

This is what is written in the constitution:

Article. IV. Section 4. “The United States shall guarantee every State in the Union a Republican Form of government.”

Don’t confuse a Republican Form of Government with the Republican Party. The United States is a federation of states that are Republics as guaranteed by the constitution. A Republican Form of government means one in which the supreme power is held by the people in those states, who elect, by voting, representatives to represent them, the public.

So without question, the intention of the constitution is to guarantee that the supreme power is held by the people. This is done by the public voting for representatives to represent them in the making of law as defined in the constitution.

State legislatures have the right, if they choose, to rescind voting rights in their states for certain reasons, such as non citizens, minors, and felons. States are no longer allowed to rescind the voting rights of citizens because they are minorities or women, whose rights to vote are now protected by constitutional amendments.

Technically one can argue the constitution doesn’t guarantee everybody a right to vote, but they would be engaging in sensationalistic rhetoric to misinform citizens about the intention of their constitution and validating the narrative of elected officials trying to justify their assault on voting rights. The practical effect of such misguided rhetoric serves as a scare tactic to undermine the confidence of the public in their right to vote resulting in increased cynicism and apathy.

Political entertainers could just as easily point out that voting rights law, for the most part, is decided by the states. As well as rescinding voting rights, a State can also legislate that everybody can vote. So rather than finding flaw with the constitution, pundits should be blaming those in State governments who advocate the restriction of voting rights, and be organizing the public to remove them from office.

Another common misconception is that the United States is not a Democracy. I’ve heard this one way too many times. The semantic perversions of language and misleading conventional wisdoms over the ages have clearly obfuscated the definitions of the word Democracy. Just because some government somewhere called themselves a Democracy doesn’t mean that’s what they were, or that our definition of the word must coincide to what that government practiced.

The distinctions between a Democratic Form of government and a Republican Form of government are meaningless. Democracy would be better defined as a process, not a form of government. A Republican Form of government is achieved through the use of the Democratic Process. A Republican Form of government is a Democracy.

Some liberty advocates claim that Democracy is a tyranny of the majority, as if a ‘Democratic’ form of government would have no law or representatives, only decisions by the majority. That is a tribal fairy tale, not a government. This fraudulent semantical distinction is just another way of undermining the confidence of the electorate about their right to vote.

To suggest the United States is not a ‘Democracy’ implies we have no inherent right to vote, as does the arguments that there is no right to vote in the constitution. Both claims are deceptions dependent upon semantic ambiguity.

The Federal Form of Republican Government, as mandated by law, is intended to prevent the central authority of a National Government from becoming too powerful. Legally, The United States is a federation of sovereign states with rights guaranteed to the citizens of those states by the Federal Government. The intention of which is the ultimate check & balance, as much so as the separation of powers as defined in the constitution’s three branches of federal government.

The government closest to the people reflects the values of those people. That is the intention of our form of government as guaranteed by the constitution, which requires voting by the public.

What we have in the United States now is a National Government who serves global interests instead of insuring that states don’t violate the rights of their citizens. This could only have been achieved through bipartisan constitutional violations.

States are now beholden to the National Government because of federal tax codes and the national debt. State officials have become subservient to Federal officials for a myriad of reasons. This allows the federal government to violate the constitution while State officials remain silent. The result is a public deprived of representation in order for the privatized global profit structures to continue.

Voting rights are being challenged by lawsuits for varying reasons throughout the states right now. This is because those who litigate for a living are in fear of losing elections. Regardless of their stated motivations, the status quo is in court because they are determined to win those elections by all means necessary.

Even though the Supreme Court overturned parts of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to legislate new hoops voters must jump through to vote, and even with unlimited amounts of money allowed for campaign propaganda, all of those tactics combined will not change the outcome of elections, because there is very little voter fraud occurring compared to the number of legitimately registered voters that there are. These tactics will merely provide cover to make election results derived from election fraud seem more plausible.

The number of voters who won’t vote due to purges, ID laws, and other voting rights battles will be inconsequential to election results rigged against the public. It’s much easier to win elections by rigging them with electronic voting machines. 

All of these political shenanigans by the courts, incumbents, and other private interest groups, are merely a distraction from election fraud. The status quo will invest millions of dollars promoting the dangers of a few illegal votes and ignore the fact that the entire privatized electoral process lacks the credibility necessary for a Republican Form of government.

The right to vote is meaningless if the election is rigged and the results are fraudulent. The same holds true for the entire political system. The public must remove private money from the entire process to insure the system is not rigged. Candidates and elected officials must not be allowed to solicit or accept any private money if the public is to achieve the legitimate representation necessary for a Republican Form of government as guaranteed to the United States by the constitution.

Ruling that ‘money is speech’ and ‘corporations are people’ is not good judicial behavior.

Amongst the many other powers assigned to the Congress in the Constitution is the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Meaning the Military, the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch, are all supposed to be regulated by the Congress.

In my opinion there is no inherent authority in the Executive or anywhere else in government that conflicts with congressional intent. There is only the authority derived by the constitution or as legislated by the congress.

The powers vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution are enumerated in a few short paragraphs all of which are clarified as regulated by Congress with language such as; as Congress may ordain and establish, under such regulation as the Congress shall make, and, as Congress may by law have directed.

To understand the authority of congress relative to the other branches of government is to understand that the authority of the government is vested in the citizens of the United States. Any power the congress has ceded to the other branches of government for whatever reason can be regained by an act of congress.

Even if it requires overriding a presidential veto, or reorganizing the supreme court, or impeaching its Justices, the congress can make whatever law it deems necessary to reestablish it’s rightful place as the primary authority over public policy.

Congress has the authority to end the emergency powers rationalizing the constitutional violations as legislated in The Patriot Act, The Authorization for Use of Military Force, The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, or any other previous acts of congress it chooses to end or amend.

 If the Executive branch of the federal government is allowed to perpetuate an imperial presidency based on waging reactionary wars of choice it undermines the rule of law and the representative form of government as guaranteed to the States in the Constitution. That it is why it is so important for the public to regain control of the Congress by electing representatives who will insist on adherence to the Constitution instead of speaking in empty platitudes for votes.

Government officials are sworn by oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and needs to be understood and interpreted correctly to be protected and defended so that the law will be obeyed. It is the Supreme Court’s responsibility and legal obligation to interpret the Constitution correctly.

The Constitution is written in simple language for citizens to interpret for themselves. It is the political prerogative of the Congress to regulate the Supreme Court as necessary for constitutional compliance.

If the Supreme Court repeatedly misinterprets the Constitution for political reasons it is incumbent upon the Congress to correct the court through legislation or impeachments. It is written in the Constitution that Judges shall hold their Offices during good behavior. If a Supreme Court Justice misinterprets the law for political reasons that is definitely bad behavior. There is no inherent lifetime tenure for a Justice during bad behavior as determined by the political judgement of the Congress.

The Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. Because of partisan allegiance , high court nominees can be approved for partisan purposes rather than their judicial experience. This is a political process where allegiance to a political party can be more important than adherence to credible constitutional interpretation.

Along with considering their constitutional compliance, it is the prerogative of the Congress determined by their political judgement as to how many Justices will serve on the Supreme Court.

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the Supreme Court at its current size of nine justices. The population is over 8 times what is was back then and over 99% of cases now filed with the Supreme Court are not even heard. Worse than the Congress constraining it’s own membership for over 100 years, it has constrained the Supreme Court to nine justices for over 140 years.

There is a constitutional battle waiting for the Congress to reassert itself as the branch of government vested with the power of the people’s representatives. The longer Congress procrastinates this constitutional crisis and the more it delegates its authority to the other branches of government the more difficult it will be for the public to regain legitimate representation.

The longer Congress tolerates constitutional misinterpretations and erroneous rulings by the Supreme Court, whether motivated by partisan purposes, ideology, incumbency, or any other reason, the further the nation drifts from the rule of law.

Every ten years the population of the country, as determined by the census, is divided by 435 representatives and each state gets their apportionment of those representatives based on the state’s population. The states divide their populations into districts determined by how many representatives they get in a process called redistricting.

Usually, state legislatures, or commissions chosen by them, decide how their states are divided into districts of equal populations. The deliberate manipulation of district boundaries, called gerrymandering, for partisan advantage, is a common practice in the process. District boundaries are often challenged in court because they are that important. They can provide predictable election results and “safe seats” for incumbents.

Gerrymandering is a process of creating congressional districts of, by, and for, party loyalty.

This contentious political process has a history of partisan manipulation in the congress and throughout the states. The entire process, nationally and locally, serves political incumbency and special interest groups, not democracy. Political representation for the public is incidental to the process and therefore the process should be ended. This would be the first step in reclaiming the House of representatives for the public.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 did away with any mention of districts at all and allows for representatives to be elected ‘at large’ statewide. This is exactly what should happen in all states. The political process of redistricting, with its partisan motivations, should be retired or, at the least, be supplemented with congressional delegations voted for ‘at-large’ and designated non-partisan.

Once approved, the electorate would be able to vote for statewide congressional delegations without the partisan constraints of gerrymandered districts, resulting in representation that more accurately reflects the state’s population instead of protecting its incumbents.

Step two on the path to “representative government” would be more representatives. The Constitution allows for up-to one representative for every fifty-thousand citizens. That’s what we should have. We currently have only one representative for every 750,000 citizens. The more representatives we have the more influence they will have on our national policy.

The number of representatives relative to the population has been constrained for over one hundred years so an update to house membership is long overdue.

As of the 2010 Census, the number of representatives could legally increase from 435 to 6560. That’s fifteen representatives for every one that we have now.

Technology has overcome geography to the point that representatives should vote from their home states. This would allow for constituents to actually meet with their representatives and discuss local concerns.

The top priority for tax dollars should be to invest in technology that provides the public with an adequate infrastructure to facilitate a better democracy.

There is no public interest reason to have representatives congregating in the nation’s capital any longer. representatives should be serving their own constituencies not Washington DC lobbyists.

Removing the corrupting influence of money from representatives brings us to Step Three; Income Based Representation. Along with congressional delegations elected ‘at large’ with increased membership, a new Apportionment Act can legislate additional representatives be apportioned by tax brackets. Instead of additional representatives being chosen from and assigned to geographical districts they could be chosen from tax brackets, statewide.

There are currently six federal income tax brackets. If you determine how many people from a state are in each tax bracket you could then apportion representatives to, and from, those tax brackets. This way citizens could be represented by a representative from their own tax bracket. This is a much more representative method of representation compared to the current system of the increasingly wealthy representing the increasingly poor.

For instance, with increased house membership and ‘at large’ elections, Texas could have up to approximately 500 reps for its population of 25 million people. If the population was divided evenly amongst the six tax brackets, that would be approximately 84 representatives chosen from each tax bracket. If the population increases or decreases in a specific tax bracket, that tax bracket will receive more or less representation accordingly.

Representation based on income would result in a more representative government. The law would reflect the priority of the people like never before.

Tax bracket apportionment is like the current system but the difference is that the population will be represented according to their incomes, statewide, rather than just the congressional districts that they live in. So rather than population and geography, representatives will be apportioned by population and income, statewide.

“Income-based Representation is required for Representative Government.” – Public Voter

Instead of apportioning representatives by the Method of Equal Proportions, ‘Tax Bracket Apportionment’ could apportion representatives to achieve a system where the percentage of the population per tax bracket is equivalent to the percentage of representative seats per tax bracket.

Tax Bracket Apportionment is much less confusing and much more fair than the current system of apportionment based on the Method of Equal Proportions, which apportions representatives by redistricting.

For every fault a critic will find with income-based representation there are solutions readily available. There are far less faults with it than there is in the current practice of redistricting.

Resistance to income-based representation is to be expected because of the advantages those with influential opinions enjoy from the current system. Many prominent voices, across the political spectrum, will resist the change because they profit from the national demise. Many will be paid shills. Many will say “it’s impossible”. Most will say “I don’t care”.

There will be all sorts of challenges raised by those who perceive they enjoy an advantage due to the inequality inherent in the current law.

Passing the necessary legislation would be easier than amending the constitution. A new apportionment act that includes increased membership, statewide congressional delegations, and income-based representation, are all constitutional, which keeps the votes required for passage to a simple majority, senate filibusters aside.

Any one of these three steps alone would be helpful in achieving representative government. Together, these three revisions to existing law would ensure appropriate electoral finance regulations could be passed, along with other legislation beneficial to the democratic process such as utilizing updated technologies to ensure fair elections. Once “representative government” is achieved, the public and the nation can unite in common purpose, as written in the preamble of the constitution;

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The need for political solutions for the public is self-evident. The country is being divided and without correction the trend will result in more and more inequality and conflict.

Whatever your traditional political cause or grievance might be, we must now recognize democracy itself is at risk of being discarded, making any future public initiatives impossible to achieve, unless we act now.

We must first fix our democracy by upgrading the democratic process to provide better access and yield better results.

We need to promote a system that provides better access and yields better results. We can reverse the policies of inequality and division by updating our democracy to achieve a more representative government, that will encourage more public participation, followed by a better democracy.

Currently, the political parties stand between voters and representative government like health insurance companies stand between patients and their doctors. They are middlemen profiting from limiting our access to the services we seek, democracy and health.

Unfortunately, these middlmen are mandated by law. Our only hope for democratic reform effective enough to matter is to promote a new apportionment act. The question of support should be mandatory for all candidates, like climate change and healthcare. It’s that important.

Tax Bracket Apportionment is a nonpartisan political solution that can be used as a litmus test for candidates to pledge allegiance to American democracy and to protect and defend representative government.

With the understanding that money is representation, congressional representation should be apportioned to states by their public’s income, not just their geography. This can be achieved using tax-bracket apportionment, where voters can elect representatives from the same income tax brackets as themselves.

Achieving a more representative government will require a transition from a conflict-based economy to a health-based economy and the electoral system must transcend private money and be transparent and verifiable.

That transition will require education and legislation in incremental steps, towards creating a more representative government. For instance, tax-bracket apportionment would merely be a stepping stone towards an economic system without an income tax.

The only way to accommodate the growing population’s need for political solutions is to upgrade the democratic system. It’s not bigger government. It’s better government.

Political solutions beneficial to the public can only be achieved democratically. More democracy is the only remedy for our democratic decay. So the solution we seek is better democracy. It is the ends and the means to a representative government that can begin to legislate political solutions for the public.

Simply put, the reason the public is broke while billionaires are springing up like weeds is because the government borrows money from those it should be taxing and taxes those it should be helping. The government extracts tax revenues from hard working people and uses it to profit those it borrows money from. In the end the practice results in our government, our infrastructure, and our land & resources, all being sold to private interests using money extracted from the public.

At the heart of our conflict-based economy is a private profit banking system colluding with our government to maintain policies that cause conflict and inequality, and massive public debt. That’s the problem.

Comparatively, at the heart of a health-based economy there would be a public profit banking system working for the public. The difference being that the public-profit bankers would represent the public interest and generate revenue for the public instead of a private interest.

Imagine if the profits realized in the financial sector went to the public. Instead of the public being forced to bailout fraudulent and speculative investment scams. The public would profit from loaning money. This is a political decision that would provide the public with enough money for everything it might need and more.

Public profit banking is just common sense, despite what those profiting from the current system will tell you. The government has the constitutional authority to profit from loaning the money it creates, instead of paying interest to use other people’s money. That is the main distinction between a representative government and an organization of economic vampires.

A representative government would reduce taxes for the working class and balance the budget. It would stop paying interest on borrowed money and start making money by creating and loaning it for profit. This would allow for more public services and economic equality initiatives.

If the government must compete, negotiate, and contract goods and services on behalf of the public, in order to provide services to the public, then a public profit bank is the perfect solution.

Basic economics teaches us an economy consists of land, resources, and labor. Money is used as the method to exchange those things. Since money has become separated from a standard of value, such as gold, and can be created from thin air, as a for-profit private service, the economy has become corrupted.

The current system rewards making excessive private profits from public debt. That is the business model being practiced. It creates inequality, political instability, and threatens our national security so the practice should be ended.

Profits are now created simply through bad loans, inflation, and bailouts. This magical new economic growth from the fiat currency should profit the government directly as a revenue center, in my opinion, without the privatized middleman industry extracting all the profit for themselves.

The current practice is a scam, whose profits are compounded over time. We are essentially enslaving the unborn working class to a future of servitude to the beneficiaries of the current scam.

An endless supply of cheap and easy money has created an industry of money pushers. Telephone solicitors, spammers, bankers, etc.. anybody who can get somebody to borrow money can profit from the practice.

Because the public is on the hook to eventually bailout bad loans, even low interest loans can be very profitable for the money pushers.

Having borrowed as much money as it has, the government’s ability to fund its priorities is without doubt. The question is what should it afford, and can the government finance its priorities without the benevolence of private profit investors? The answer is yes, with money created by a public profit bank.

The federal government should be funded primarily by the profits from investing, loaning money, and issuing credit, and by the taxing of the same, not by taxing income from people’s labor, or even their purchases. Income tax and sales taxes should all be eliminated and the government should fund itself and profit the public like an investment bank profits its shareholders, from growth.

If the profits from money creation were used wisely, I believe there would be enough money for jobs, healthcare, education, and for public works programs. There would be no excessive public debt and there would be no interest payments on the money borrowed to fund the government. The government could be a profit center for the public.

Those creating the money would be better regulated and accountable to the public through the democratic process, instead of requiring bailouts for their overcompensated private-profit services.

Everyone could then enjoy the education and healthcare necessary for smart and healthy communities.

We as a taxpaying voting public have chosen a government that prefers to spend a fortune on conflct, supposdedly, to protect our system. The system that deprives citizens of adquate healthcare, unless they have insurance.

In a health-based economy, the public would be employed producing something they would also pay to consume, good health. A health-based economy would be the true free-market economy because, unlike conflict, people want good health. It just needs to be made accessible like Henry Ford made automobiles affordable for his employees.

Everybody wants it. Everybody will work for it. That itself provides a functional economy, supply and demand. Health made affordable for everyone, by everyone, as a right, by law.

Good health doesn’t depend on public debt like conflict does. Good health comes from educating people about lifestyle choices, which is very affordable compared to perpetually preparing for war.

A health-based economy would be an economic conversion away from conflict, that would require investments into health and healing.

We need to invest in the future of our form of government.

We need to stop building prisons and build more hospitals.

We need to provide people with enough support to prevent desperate or criminal behavior from occurring in the first place.

We must prevent violence by law.

We must retool factories to manufacture the products necessary to sustain the coming population.

A transition to a health-based job creation plan will likely be opposed by most of those who profit from the conflict-based economy.

Keeping health care scarce is the current policy tactic which maximizes the profits for institutions that act as middlemen between patients and their doctors.

The health-insurance companies are bureaucratic middleman profiting from artificial scarcity and should be rendered obsolete with a new healthcare act. They are an industry that exists to determine who gets health care and who doesn’t, when everybody should.

The taxpayer pays more to deprive some people of healthcare than they would pay to provide everybody with it. It’s a horrible system and needs to be changed.

A health-based economy is the alternative to our current socioeconomic paradigm. It is sustainable, more desirable, and more profitable for the public compared to the conflict-based economy.

A conflict-based economy refers to job creation resulting from conflict that nobody wants, excepting those that profit from conflict.

Conflict is a necessary evil to prevent more conflict, they say, paid for by the public, ostensibly to keep us safe. The public funds nearly every aspect of the security apparatus deemed necessary to keep us safe yet the violence and the debt keep escalating.

The conflict-based economy divides the public into a system that prospers some for persecuting others. The alternative, a health-based economy, would create an economy sustained by providing healthcare services to those that need them, and will work for them.

A conflict-based economy requires public debt because it has no free-market demand. A health-based economy is sustained by consumer demand for health services. People will work for the health making it a profitable, self-sustaining economy and not reliant on public debt, like the conflict-based economy.

The best way to correct the national demise is to understand and correct the polices that profit the institutions of the conflict-based economy. This form of economy depends on conflict increasing for prosperity, paid for with public debt. The resulting inequality creates more conflict that requires the need for more security causing more debt and the process repeats itself in a self-fulfilling spiral of increasing conflict and debt.

The conflict-based economy is not financially sustainable and ultimately betrays its intention of keeping us safe. The root cause of the national demise is the conflict-based economy.