Click to go back to: Part 1
Some of my suggestions (many "Naturalistic") to improve
our Govt: (Listed below are 10 major issues, and a half
page discussion of each. The reader might first scan the 10 issue titles,
and first focus on the few of most interest to him/her.)
Participation: Despite what people have heard, people should
be encouraged to feel that politics is very important, and it
has never been unethical or immoral for citizens to devote more than
$1000 of their very valuable time and money to a candidate, whom they
(after study) believe in. Billionaires have always found ways to do
this, anyway. (I believe that incorrect notions arose, when the heads
of fairly "common" interest groups suffered unnecessary panic attacks,
out of fear that things might greatly improve or something. "But never
fear!" Sadly, many people have little time, energy or resources remaining,
as they try to take care of family and/or take time to prepare for work,
go to and from work, work long hours, recover, and pay too much
taxes. Also these people have many other draining essential tasks,
red tape, and need for breaks. They can not devote as much time to politics,
investigation, discussions, and relaxed contemplation as they wish to,
to improve things).
Perhaps we need strong Lobby Groups which work on behalf of the broad
and real needs of reasonable citizens, not just some hypothesized "theoretical"
needs of citizens. We need a sensitive branch of the Justice Department
and Health Department that acts promptly and effectively on behalf of
the obvious legitimate rights and needs of people (the victims), not
just pretends to, while serving the victimizers. (The case of "slamming"
was a good example, but there are many others.)
- Application of Naturalism, Conservatism, and Reason:
Hippocrates advised health care providers to "do thy patient no harm."
I believe he was endorsing an extremely important "Naturalistic" principle,
which should lay a foundation for many political principles and practices.
Naturalism incorporates much of Laotse's wisdom, also Paine's, Jefferson's,
Chief Seattle's, and others. It also infers that we can often let nature
be our guide. Hippocrates also said, "let thy food be thy medicine
and thy medicine be thy food." (That was, of course, before the FDA,
In my opinion, many conscientious organizations incorporate some good
aspects of the above: the Libertarian-, the Natural Law-, and the Green-
Parties, and probably some "wings" of others Parties. Also, there are,
at present, many organizations proposing creative solutions, like Citizens
for Health, the Lindesmith Center, Witness for Peace, Food First, and
The Independent Institute, to name only a few, to consider. (These
organizations can also provide huge amounts of information and other
references to support the assertions I have made in this article, in
my opinion.) In some cases, their ideas vary greatly. The readers
are encouraged to study varying views, especially outside
those views promoted by the Govt. This means outside
the huge, powerful Govt bureaucracy, and the Economic Complexes. And
outside some big bucks foundations and associates, i.e. outside all
those, whose licenses, special benefits, and special well being, is
dependent on "pleasing" the Govt.
Subordinate your Own Experiences to COSMOPOLITANISM: Some
words of caution, for you to consider, when you hear words like the
World Bank, IMF, WTO, NAFTA, "Hague" Court, Globalization. And also
wording like "FREE TRADE", and "there are no wars where free trade
puts all countries on the same level playing field?" (i.e. Cosmopolitanism):
I think that if we let "Natural philosophy" be our guide,
we note this: Many varied, wonderful groups and cultures have developed,
each with its precious wisdoms, partly because of great mountains, oceans,
and varied climates, which have separated them. On the other hand,
vast destruction has rapidly occurred when certain animals were accidentally
brought from one continent to another, or where continents were suddenly
linked by continental drift. Unfortunately, the cosmopolitanism which
many advocate today, is much like that advocated during and after World
War I, where a lot of promises were broken. At best, it is a superficial,
rushed game of "heads I win, tails you loose." I can not write better
on this subject than Dr. Sun Yat-sen did in his San Min Chu I
lectures, and a "Joe Short" did when addressing why some "grandiose
plans" bring "spectacular failure" to a people.
Was the "Patient's Bill of Rights" plan, the "Brothers to the Rescue,"
and the "Slamming" that I discussed previously, also a part of
the "Free Trade, Cosmopolitanism" mentality? Consider the Frank
Church report describing Govt's assault, and extreme injury to citizens,
who were innocently enjoying a break. Should we "buy" a social theocrat's
"Cosmopolitan theory" that Govt needs to take more taxes, lest some
citizens enjoy too long of "break," because the Govt uses its own idle
time more humanely?
((Optional, a few more words about "idle time":
The Govt, its puppeteers, and even theocrats, have often enjoyed great
success by whipping up public fear or jealousy, regarding what certain
people do with their "idle" time. They want H. D. Thoreau working
steadily at various jobs, not wandering around ponds,
observing, feeling, thinking, and "getting into trouble." They want
actresses to just mind their own business in Hollywood, etc., pay taxes,
and to keep their stupid mouths shut, not be thinking about things
like "foreign policy," (better left to the govt "experts") or "getting
into trouble." But consider what Mead said, and also this: Many of
the greatest advances in history have been made by people breaking away
from the standard businesses, jobs, and the govt "promoted pass
times." A few more historical examples of departures from pre-envisioned
"norms" are as follows: A plague caused Newton to suspend his University
teaching and he returned home with little to do (but to invent what
was his greatest work). Maxwell, somewhat similarly, declined an excellent
University teaching offer, just to allow himself the freedom to think
things out, in his own unhindered way. And Schrodinger, when young,
used a tutor at home, instead of trying to get the equivalent at school.
I think Maxwell did too. Were these unethical "head starts?" Should
the govt over plan everything, and use taxes to level everything? (Except
where it impedes the Govt.'s irresponsible tyrants, as discussed in
the Frank Church reports? And except in cases where it negatively affects
the super cunning, rich, and influential, which manipulate
the politicians into the over planning and over leveling.) And lastly,
let me add this: I have heard that one innovator made some "hi-tech"
advances, while fiddling around in a garage, when he "ought to have
been in school!" Although I don't know if that's really true, it seems
more plausible than a single politician inventing the Internet.))
- Campaign Spending and "Reform": Are we really limited,
regarding "campaign spending reform" to just two (horrible and
ultimately unworkable) choices? Either we limit everyone's spending
to some "reasonable" sum, say $1000 or so, per year on "politics," or
alternately that anyone can spend an unlimited amount (i.e. a "billionaire"
a billion)? In my opinion, Natural philosophy teaches us to note subtle,
naturalistic differences and alternatives, and I think it offers us
this advice: It is wise not to limit spending on "naturalistic
forms" of communication, i.e. first class mail, speeches in "convention"
centers, ads in newspapers and magazines. On the other hand, non-naturalistic
"hi-tech" has made certain new communications available, that naturally
requires careful, circumspect handling. (This new "hi-tech" has made
possible a new type of subtle political bribery, i.e. "you listen
to my political ad, and I'll give you an expensive super bowl, or the
like entertainment, free and without your effort.") These new modes
of communication are licensed to pass under public grounds
(i.e. Cable TV), or through public airways (i.e. radio, TV).
Thus, a "Naturalistic" approach justifies the concept of public rules,
to prevent unbalanced spending in the latter cases. Perhaps instead
of TV election ad spending, there could be some public TV presentation
of positions, which even includes some "small" allocation of time to
"small" parties, according to the "small" vote they have received in
the previous election.
(I realize that even "good" ideas and proposals are dependent on a little
bit of Govt "good faith." If that is lacking, then alternately, all
Govt regulation of radio/TV communications may as well be removed,
and this sad dilemma often arises.) Although I have not worked out
legal details, I sense that Companies and Organizations, "enjoying"
limited liability or other "special standing," should not contribute
to Radio/ TV political ads or to political parties. And that their short
Radio/TV issue presentations, if allowed, should be limited to months
before the election, and without naming candidates. And that the time
allotted for all issue and political ads should be very limited in total,
and especially so if not "time balanced" by other schools of thought,
- REGARDING TAXES: I think a "Naturalistic" approach
teaches us this: Historically, government's chief legitimate role, and
its justification for taxing, was to protect people's legitimately
accumulated assets, not Govt's taking away the assets for itself. The
more assets, the more area of protection required, and
the greater the expenditure needed to protect it all.
(A slight oversimplification, but I think good enough.) Therefore, if
we ever establish a constructive, "good faith" government, I suggest
that all present taxes be removed, and that there be levied a 0.3%
tax, or less, on approximate assets. And that there also
be a tax on polluting things, to discourage pollution. And I suggest
that no one's assets be taxed until they are sufficient to truly provide
them with an effective "safety net". I think, that in the year 2000,
that would have meant exempting assets below about $100,000 from taxes.
That, of course, strikes most readers as a very high (asset) "floor."
But it only seems so, for this reason: For a 100 years, the Govt,
its bureaucracy, and puppeteers have masterly conspired to increase
taxes and increase their wasteful and damaging spending. Also to put
out carefully calculated misinformation, mal-information, pro-hate
propaganda, and cleverly timed and scheduled taxes, and "cute," glib
words, to mislead us, in my opinion. (Why should anyone be taxed if
they don't have large assets for Govt to protect?) And incidentally,
my tax suggestions do include taxes on foundation assets.
(With regret in a few cases, where I think the foundation is utterly
Miscellaneous remark: The subject of "Social Security," (reform, etc.,
how much to privatize, what guarantees if any, and details) is beyond
the scope of this article. I think that the Govt is bound to exercise
absolutely "full faith and credit" for what it takes from anyone for
his/her "social security," including protecting against inflation.
And of course, if a surgeon's procedure, etc., on a patient, results
in a the patient's disability or further setback, the doctor should
not act to delay a patient's benefits just because it would make the
doctor's treatment look bad (which it was)! And other "horror stories."
- Patents, Copyrights, Intellectual Property, Business, and Economics:
To some extent, Natural philosophy has already been wisely applied by
others to these subjects. But it can be applied still much further,
and hopefully implemented! It is beyond the scope of this article to
discuss this in great details, but a few comments are as follows: If
a company made a "disk" of a great music performance 30 years ago, they
could have just printed on it that "any reproduction of it is illegal."
And 30 years later, just declare, "sorry, it's permanently out of
"print," "no future printing planned." But the company can
still leave the old label, "no reproductions allowed" on it. In my
opinion, that constitutes "restraining trade" of a viable product, and
promotes cultural mediocrity, not progress. And should automatically
result in the transfer of reproduction rights to others who will make
it available again, for a payment of a simple, reasonable royalty fee
per reproduction. (This argument applies similarly to some good drugs,
and other products, when discontinued.)
In fact, I believe that our entire patent and copyright system (or laws)
acts against the "Constitution's intent." Perhaps it should be replaced
by a technically competent and ethical team of judicial govt
experts. They would award an amount (generally a very small percent
of the product's sales proceeds) to its inventor, as follows: The "experts"
would estimate how far the invention was "a head of its times," and
how valuable it was regarding a "great breakthrough." They should realize
that others will copy the general idea, with "variations," and call
it their original too, which is not fully fair. A small wholesale or
retail sales tax could finance the royalty awards or perhaps lump sum
awards. (It is a kind of "pollution tax" on the intellectual dispersion
of the inventor's original idea.) And I think some very small rewards
should be made to people, who cause an increased use of a "non-patentable"
"thing," by showing a great new usefulness and/or effectiveness associated
with it. That sure beats the hatred, contempt, and envy, more often
received as a reward.
I think the most important principle to remember is that being a "copycat,"
is not immoral, and is very Naturalistic! ((I have always
distrusted obstinate people who refuse to copy others' good ideas (or
to admit they copied them when they did); I have always trusted those
who copy others with thanks and proper accreditation.)) And I'm afraid
that imitation really is the highest form of "flattery," even better
than an insincere compliment. And that "seeing ones ideas imitated"
will have to remain the main "reward" for the inventor. I think that
the obtaining of "complete and just rewards," for the inventor, is just
not feasible, using any patent or copyright system, especially
the one "we" have today! And that the more the efforts to obtain such
perfect justice, the more it will allude everyone, including the most
I think that Buckminster Fuller was one of the first to grasp the problems.
And also some thoughtful philanthropists and organizations who awarded
their own "noble gratuities" to people who have contributed to science
and health. I think that it is wise for "poor" countries to either
ignore the "intellectual property" system, or to render unto it extremely
little of the poor country's scant surpluses, until they achieve modest
wealth. And not much even after that. I think that the Govts of "rich"
nations should fully accommodate this without their usual dirty overt
and covert behavior and tricks. (Of course, again, nearly all my above
proposals are dependent on the Govt's having a little bit of good faith.
Without that, all "intellectual property" protective systems should
be scrapped, because they will just be a dirty farce, in practice, anyway.
Taking this point further, many thinkers advocate limiting Govt's
economic powers as much as feasible, so as to limit its appeal
to narrow minded interests to win control of Govt for their own economic
ends, and the harm resulting.)
- We need to Drastically Cut Down the Size of "our" Govt and its
(I understand that the federal Govt collected for it spending
about $20,000 per "working" person in year 2000. Does that seem reasonable
for a country not in a major War?) The extremely great amounts
of money the Govt has taken from us through high taxes, forfeiture,
high estate taxes, and red tape, has almost all been USED despicably
AGAINST OUR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS! Increased
Govt size, power, and its irresponsibility, has interfered with
our privacy, and our legitimate actions and choices; Govt has
overthrown democratic governments abroad (such as in the Allende case)
and sabotaged it here; Govt has lied about it, and covered up
its actions, and govt continues to; similarly with "our" Govt's
aid to those who kill and destroy innocent Indians and other indigenous
peoples in South America; Govt has thrown deadly poisons into innocent
peoples' drinks (as described in the Frank Church report), I think,
for sport; Govt has intentionally persecuted (innocent) groups
and gone after them like a SOB (as described in a non-erased
presidential tape, presumably deemed less damaging by govt than
most govt actions).
Govt deliberately kept the few important non-erased tapes, and
tape content, (and other important cause/effect evidence since 1957),
as inconspicuous and quiet as possible, and hard to obtain. This was
done, largely, to continue to obstruct justice, sabotage the judicial
trial system, to block from considerations what should have also been
considered, to make sure the environment was stilted, bigoted and prejudiced,
to encourage future politician to be equally so, to try to punish the
innocent, and to inflict excessive punishment upon the guilty. It was
also done to work "corruption of the blood," and to pick jurists and
brief jurists in a stilted way, and with stilted rules. And also to
use stilted rules, so that the accused could be (in effect) tried many
times for the same crime for which he/she was accused. (I feel that
all the above and more should be said, even though I believe that in
some of the trials, those found "guilty" were indeed "guilty" of something.)
Govt has destroyed and tried to destroy very helpful, honest
people (sometimes called "whistleblowers") for making the Govt look
inefficient or worse, and tried to prevent them from receiving their
just rewards. Similarly in the case of people just working for good
Govt. Govt has mal-labeled its critics as dangerous "Govt bashers"
and "Govt haters," rather than to admit that it, itself, has been the
"giant conceited, arrogant, persecutor," and likely still is.
Since the end of World War 2, in my opinion, "our" Govt has carried
out many unjustified military provocations and interventions (i.e. small
wars), in effect, momentarily easing the persecution of some groups
"here," so that they could join in the persecutions abroad. (On
the other hand, I think our Govt's great intervention in the Korean
War was motivated by an understandable caring and concern. But
the decision also involved a degree of stupidity, and the result was
prolonged by Govt stupidity. Govt has given us the false impression
that its staggeringly high taxes are working for us. But in the federal
case, and in some state cases, the Govt is working extremely hard
against our legitimate interests in almost every instance.
I do admire the meritorious aspects of a few of America's more
conscientious Presidents. They warned us, in their farewell speeches,
to beware of the growing economic/political power and unhealthy alliances
between Govt and various complexes, then, and in the changing future.
I think they also hinted that their increasing age and declining vigor
was preventing them from making more progress toward the limiting of
that rising threat. In view of the great work, by many people in Gov't
and serving under it, during WW2 and the Civil War, the Govt's despicable
performance since l957 has been especially painful! ((Incidentally,
a smaller, efficient government (like the extinction of the big Tyrannosaurus
Dinosaur) is a "Naturalistic" idea.))
- Regarding "Over" Population: Due to the imperfections or misinterpretations
of the Bible, or due to something, I think the following incorrect
thinking has arisen: "Man, being so superior (and to a lesser
extent women), should rule, dominate, boss around, and plunder all animals,
plants, and the earth, to satisfy all human desires. Except that humans
should avoid highly nutritious apples, or the like, lest humans begin
to behave reasonably and with knowledge. Humans should be fruitful,
multiply exceedingly and without limit, and not
think about the result. God will unconditionally protect people's absolute
right to do so, and for them to even force others to do so. And
even if the latter is unfair, suffering is good, and God will forgive
it, or the like, anyway".
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss this very important
subject in detail. It is unfortunate that gross misbehavior by
Western civilization has tended to compel some Eastern civilizations
to over populate, out of defensive needs, or to be slow to address rapid
population advances since then. Much prejudice, bigotry, and bullying,
in many western countries, has been very costly to the "West"
and to the world, and continues to be. These bad "mindsets" and actions
have been promoted by many institutions, politicians, and people. And
it did not stop after Roe vs. Wade. I believe that over population
tends to cause increased pollution, a subject discussed earlier. And
that this is not necessarily "curable" (merely) by good will, good efforts,
and better production technology. I believe that over population has
the potential to undermine much of the good benefits which good political
and scientific progress could offer. And to change, drastically, the
effective remedies, and the "face" of my simple proposals, for progress.
However, one note of caution! "Figuratively speaking," eons
ago, when "Cain killed Abel," even a population of "two" may have seemed
too much for Cain. When the world's resources and legitimate needs
were so much easier to balance (prior to Roe vs. Wade), the leaders
threw away the best opportunities even then, by their stilted social
behavior. The policies of the "rulers" were often motivated by bigotry
and the desire for great, broad power and personal wealth. They were
often autocratic, extremely against people's reasonable right to privacy,
dictatorial, and theocratic.
((Optional: Incidentally, a debate over whether "human"
life exists in the reproductive organs, the organ's DNA, in every
human cell, the sperm or the egg after either has been produced, or
in the egg at the moment of "fertilization" by the sperm, or some time
later, etc., is to my mind this: Often, just an attempt to divert
people from guarding against the growing, dangerous use of autocratic,
political power! Nature gives people the sure knowledge to know
when an infant enters the real atmosphere of this world, and disconnects
from the other internal world. And society and people need not have
a doctor's or theocrat's degree in obfuscation to understand that!
(Perhaps that is also one lesson intended, when there was "breathed
into Adam's nostrils, the breath of life." Caution, humans
should go by their "CPR" training.) Miscellaneous Remark: Perhaps
another lesson was intended when we read that the "forbidden fruit"
was a special "delight to Eve's eyes." Since only primates
have such special color sensitivity (to red, green, and blue), they
had better use it to the maximum, because primates lost their
ability to make vitamin C within their bodies, while evolving.
And primates are just about the only animals without that capability.
I think that the loss of one capability, with the gain of another, is
not likely coincidental. Might the author(s) of the "Bible"
somehow "sensed" something like that?))
- Govt.'s role in education should be limited to teaching the
basics. The federal govt should have no educational role, and has proved
it. Do you want a federal Govt to fire a teacher or a Surgeon General,
who mentions the "cremasteric fascia" when teaching biology, anatomy,
bones and muscles? (Also, see my concerns under point #7.) Do you
want a federal government to teach kids a distorted version of history,social
science and political science, full of "spins", that beautifies and
whitewashes its own treacherous history after 1957, and some other
periods? Do you think that thepresidents, of either major party, are
interested in the public being educated and making informed decisions,
when they carefully wait until after the November elections before issuing
pardons? The "Fed" can't even evaluate itself properly! Do you want
Govt to fund more "Institutes for Human Ecology" to poison innocent
people intentionally, while they're not looking, and similar "Cosmopolitan"
- Any minor party with many great ideas, such as reducing the size and
extension of Govt, should keep the following "Naturalistic" notion in
mind: A good doctor will not, in some cases, suddenly
stop a patient from taking a pill, "cold turkey," which the patient
has been taking 30 years, without a transitional substitute. Let's call
the previous bad pill "pro-governmenterall." If doctors order such
arbitrary and inhumane "abrupt stoppages," they will soon scare most
of their potential clients away. Also, "reformists" should
remember that certain things, such as the FDIC,arose for reasons.
Many people, who just wanted their savings protected, lost all their
money in certain savings institutions, during the depression. These
"savors" werenot seeking "high speculative growth." I think
that some of the leaders of those"savings" institutions behaved somewhat
like the "greenmail" paying companies ofrecent times (i.e. rewarding
their favorite "greenmailers" or their somewhat naggingfriends or themselves).
Some historical remarks seems due regarding subject #5 above (i.e., my
suggestion that taxation be based mainly on the value of one’s
Assets which the government protects). I have recently read information
indicating that Adam Smith, the famous economist, made a suggestion
much like mine, above. Adam Smith (1723-1790) was a creative ‘Scottish’ and
British economist, philosopher, and professor; and ventured into other
things as well. He also associated with many leading thinkers of the
age, and learned much from them.
Click to go to: Part
Click to go back to: Part 1