Some Thoughts On Improving Our Democratic System.
Date: Monday, March 19 2007
The perception of the populace today is that our democratic system of political governance is severely compromised by the overwhelming influence of "behind the scene" forces (BSF) with questionable motives and loyalties.
This influence is brought to bear through economic benefits, both positive and negative, conveyed to elected representatives (and 'civil' servants) via morally or legally questionable means. These may include, but are not limited to:
Bribe, blackmail, benefits, use of goods and services, paid-for services and advertising, economic threats against person or family, physical threats against person or family, etc.
By no stretch of the imagination may one assume that all elected representatives are so influenced but, a sufficient number is, so as to seriously affect governance "for the people and by the people".
In answer to the common lament of "how do you fight the system?" a two-pronged attack is offered here for consideration and implementation:
1) Curtailing the monetary means of the "behind the scene" forces (BSF).
2) Identifying and choosing the best political representative.
What must be realized is that the BSF is financed through interest paid on money borrowed from any bank.
A simple example will illustrate this point:
A worker deposits a pay cheque into a bank account, say $1,000.00
With this amount on deposit the bank may loan out $10,000.00
On this $10,000 loan the bank collects say 5% interest, or $500.00 per year
On the $1,000 deposit the bank pays out, say 4% interest, or $40.00 per year
For the bank's gain of $460.00 per year
A nice return indeed for the bank on the $10,000.00 that doesn't exist. Mathematically one may say that the bank collected an INFINITE % of interest because of the way interest is calculated: any number divided by zero is infinity. An alternative calculation shows the gain as $460 / $1000 x 100% = 46%. Not infinite interest % but still outrageously enormous.
Now you know how banks achieve their obscene profits!
These particular numbers are only used to illustrate the wealth creation of the BSF. In fact the skewed relationship between deposits and loans is often much worse for even greater earnings.
The implications of this power of banks "to create money out of thin air" are quite detrimental for any country and its populace that condones this sort of thing, such as Canada and the USA. How long could you afford to pay 50% interest on your mortgage payments? How long do you think a country can afford this? (I really don't know the answer to the latter question but I fear we shall find out before too long.)
It is these usurious gains that finance the "behind the scene" forces, and the best and most direct example of this happening is the United States Federal Reserve Bank, a privately owned banking operation "legalized" in the USA in 1913. That the most horrific wars in world history occurred after the establishment of this bank is no mere accident. (The reader is encouraged to google search on any assertion made herein. Try www.sweetliberty.org).
Thus the first step must be to curtail the funding of the BSF. What follows is a list of suggestions that individuals may consider implementing:
1) live within your means
2) borrow money only as an absolutely last resort for bill paying
3) pay off any credit card balance owing at the end of the month or before interest is due
3) pay cash for consumer items, and things that lose value with time (depreciate)
4) use loans only for purchases that increase in value with time (appreciate)
5) use loans only for purchases where the interest is tax deductible
6) borrow money from relatives, friends, acquaintances, offering a signed contract AND the going interest rate
7) obtain loans from credit unions or life insurance companies; not the complete solution but better than banks
8) use ATM machines of the bank with your account; insist on no-charge usage
9) pay off any loans as quickly as possible thus saving on interest. This is especially important in Canada and countries where mortgage interest is not tax deductable.
No doubt that many people would need to make some hard choices. It is a matter of priorities; emphasize what's most beneficial and important to you and yours.
Having made a dent in the financing of the BSF, we turn our attention to curtailing the direct political influence.
Shakespeare, in one of his plays laments: "First we kill all the lawyers"! Since a large number of politicians begin their career as lawyers, that would solve that. But this is illegal and messy and is not advocated. Lawyers may make good advisers but are lousy decision makers, as our political morass and morals exemplify.
Thus the next step is to carefully select the candidate to vote for, or not to vote for, as your representative in federal, provincial/state, or local, politics.
Let's begin with the nots:
Don't vote for anyone that-
1) is/was a lawyer or had anything to do in law-enforcement.
2) has mysterious or unknown financial backers, especially foreign!
3) is known to associate with international bankers or financiers.
4) attends secretive national or international meetings where minutes of the meetings are not made public.
5) does not have some economic interest in your electoral district (riding).
6) won't undergo a criminal background check... think of your wallet!
7) that has a criminal conviction. You need to ask around because criminal records can be erased legally!
8) is an incumbent unless you have solid evidence of exemplary performance. Don't settle for so-so!
9) is an incumbent who voted for a law that is not in the best interest of all citizens.
10) is an incumbent. Period. This will tend to break-up 'cozy' relationships that developed over the last term.
That's a lot of don't's. Keep in mind that these people are asking you to trust them with your wallet, your well-being, your rights and freedoms, and sometimes with your life. It is only right and just to be most discriminating in your choice of representative. Do not be swayed by popular or noisy, self-promoting, advocates appealing to your sense of "justice" to vote for a candidate that you intuitively know not to have your best interests at heart.
Then, who do you vote for?
Do vote for that candidate-
1) with the least financial backing, ie. a shoestring campaign.
2) with the least 'slick' advertising.
3) that makes a minimum number of promises since most get broken.
4) with a similar social / financial standing as yourself.
5) that has lived in your riding for a number of years.
6) running as an independent if all political parties are acting against the people's best interests.
As a last resort you can "refuse your ballot" if all candidates are unacceptable. Much better than spoiling your ballot because it necessitates an inquiry, thus gumming-up the election machinery and causing delays. This will probably only work in electoral districts still using paper ballots. Some feed-back would be appreciated here.
That's it, a non-exhaustive checklist useful for grilling your favourite candidate. Add additional criteria as they become apparent.
"The worst decision is to change nothing and expect improvement".
H. F. Wolff
March 16., 2007
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 21, 2007]