Three Simple Solutions (no politics necessary)

[emilynghiem]

Oil companies are not protected like freedom of the press is.

FaceBook is not a press organization

but if the NYT owned 90% of the newspapers in America it could be broken up too

If FaceBook owners want the same protections
under freedom of the press, if they could agree to standards of journalist media
established by journalist schools, trade groups, and institutions.

I would like to see a council of these organizations that meets to address complaints and reforms
among its own recognized members, similar to the UN, where
this is optional, run by media institutions, and not govt.

What I thought we might see come out of Trump's complaints about abuses:
Why not organize people and media groups to form a separate "two house"
system, similar to Congress divided into House and Senate: And have one
group of REPS come together from all MEDIA sources, to address biases,
conflicting policies, complaints, etc. and agree to spell out which reports
are proven false, which are contested or unproven, and which are spun
either left or right instead of fighting over these where you can't confirm the different sources.
This Representation council can include every level from direct representation to followings
by groups, and encourage all people to check against other sources to ensure correct information is distributed.

(And also form a SENATE of reps from EVERY PARTY serving on a Constitutional Council
reviews complaints and abuses, spells out the conflicts and objections,
and facilitates resolving complaints, refinancing corrections owed to taxpayers for govt abuses,
and implementing solutions by consensus of the various Parties. )

Both MEDIA and PARTY organizations are OUTSIDE GOVT and not regulated by the Constitution.
So these could use a SEPARATE system (outside govt courts or legislatures)
for PEOPLE to address abuses themselves. Then, where solutions might
involve changes to public policy through govt, these can be presented to Govt to implement reforms.
It wouldn't be the govt imposing on people, media or parties how to solve problems and complaints of abuse.
But the people would address these through various Party and Media sources,
form consensus based solutions that represent the full spectrum of the public interest (not just one political bias over another),
and implement those policies, either through private means or going through Govt if it involves public policy.

The Congress and Court procedures, all the Constitutional process through Govt
would still work the same way.

But these conflicts over political beliefs that become issues of personal choice
could be addressed better in person, work out solutions that represent all people equally,
and only present those agreed solutions to Govt to implement which already represent the people.
That way, this cuts down on the abuse of Govt to push political biases and beliefs of groups of people
that don't represent the entire public.

 

[emilynghiem]

Instead of mass riots and political yell wars, it's embarrassing how simple the solutions can be:

(1) Remember the ongoing fights about LGBT policies and accusations of anti-gay bigotry?

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Unisex neutral restrooms. No need to force anyone to change policies or beliefs.

(Also, only having states recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships, while marriage remains a social ceremony for individuals to decide, not govt)

(2) Facebook and Twitter wars over who has rights to decide policy on contents?

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Start your own media network. When you run your own business, you make your own rules on what can be posted or not.
(Similar with medical policies on masks and distancing: If you run your own District with its own medical operations, taxpayers can agree to the costs of precautions and consequences. That way, residents can decide their own policies for managing their own resources to meet local demands as a self-governing district.)

(3) Now what about resolving complaints and cover-ups of police abuse and brutality?

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Let neighborhood districts hire and screen their own police, and train all residents to enforce the same procedures. When officers and public servants know each other through sustainable relationships, this wards off abuse and crime, especially outside instigators who can't play divide and conquer.

"(1) Remember the ongoing fights about LGBT policies and accusations of anti-gay bigotry?

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Unisex neutral restrooms. No need to force anyone to change policies or beliefs.

(Also, only having states recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships, while marriage remains a social ceremony for individuals to decide, not govt)"

Appeasement is the name of your game. It is no coincidence that the handful of unchanging, primordial human ideas (see similar tenets of religious texts extant since time immemorial) of what is always Right and always Wrong are inextricably tied to the continued survival of the human species. Sooner or later one must, both as an individual mind and citizen of whatever civilization, take a stand on the side of those ideologies, rules, morals—what have you—that prevent humanity from extinction. Otherwise one becomes a champion for mankind's eventual, final end. The LGTBQ movement is also a movement for and toward human extinction, sort of a long game extinction event, one where we become the dinosaurs, if you get my drift. Your point solution (1) aims to appease both those ideologies and agents provocateur who stand simultaneously for perpetuating mankind and ending it, eventually. Surely you've more common sense than that as you seem to be an individual possessed of the capacity for deep and reasonable thought. Perhaps you're just too naïve to grasp the depth and consequence of the issue. For judging by this post you haven't even scratched the surface.

"(2) Facebook and Twitter wars over who has rights to decide policy on contents?

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Start your own media network. When you run your own business, you make your own rules on what can be posted or not.
(Similar with medical policies on masks and distancing: If you run your own District with its own medical operations, taxpayers can agree to the costs of precautions and consequences. That way, residents can decide their own policies for managing their own resources to meet local demands as a self-governing district.)"

Again with the highly visible naiveté. So we'll have 360 odd million media networks? A network for every American? Why not seven billion networks?

So you're calling for something like autonomous districts ran like employee owned companies? Is this the new Utopia all the cool kids dream about? A place rife with fluffy bunnies, peace, harmony, unity and togetherness? America is ONE nation, under God. America is not fifty individual city or nation states no matter how much postmodernist propaganda wants you to believe it so. How will your privately owned "districts" defend their borders when a dozen other such districts unite in the cause of conquering one of their neighbors? History is full of such events. I suggest you become a student of it.

"(3) Now what about resolving complaints and cover-ups of police abuse and brutality?

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Let neighborhood districts hire and screen their own police, and train all residents to enforce the same procedures. When officers and public servants know each other through sustainable relationships, this wards off abuse and crime, especially outside instigators who can't play divide and conquer."

So very naïve indeed. Every man, woman, child, pensioner, graduate, farmer, merchant, etc. will have their own idea of the ideal cop and the ideal powers of the ideal cop and the limitations of said cop's power. The ancient concept of the city guard is not one of appeasement. The police do not exist to appease (there's that word again) the whims and desires and wants of every last or of any citizen at all. The police do exist to perform a grim but necessary job for purpose of maintaining internal civilizational order: enforcing the law.

We do not live in a civilization where power, political or otherwise, is shared equally or at all by every last citizen, nor should we ever create such a "utopia". In our civilization we, through elections, give over absolute power over our lives to men and women we elect. That's the fairytale we're all taught, but I digress. In truth we individual citizens are born without any true or meaningful political power. Instead our government trusts us on good faith to follow the laws created by our representatives in exchange for the peace and freedom to move about our nation, marry, procreate, pursue educations, careers, hobbies, etc. all without fear of draconian restrictions or democide. Our government gives us the benefit of the doubt, in theory and normally in practice, that we will behave and live lives governed by an American sense of personal responsibility.

When an American citizen commits a violent felony, he or she betrays that trust given at birth to each of us by our government, spits in the face of that benefit of the doubt and most importantly, creates a victim whom by law must be given the comfort of reparations—avenged. Felons lose rights, lose government trust—and rightly so. My point being? The man who's name pertains most to your third point, the one the rioters claim to be burning down America in the name of, also lost the trust of the police who knew him and knew what he was capable of. Again, the words appeasement and naiveté must arise to the surface . . .

Dear night_son
First of all, thank you for your thoughtful response in such depth!
If everyone invested as much thought, we can actually succeed in
longterm reforms that are not an easy fix that can fit in simple sound bytes.

(1) for the first issue, the point of govt is to remain neutral, not take sides which would unfairly impose one belief over another.
So this solution is neither appeasing one side or the other, but leaving people to their own beliefs.

When I present this unisex solution, people on both sides who want to "FORCE their beliefs on the others" are
NOT convinced this is enough to defend their agenda!
BOTH extremes OBJECT to neutrality, which shows this is not appeasement at all!

The only people who seem to be satisfied are ones who have neither agenda.
So they are not "appeased" either because they already believed in a neutral policy,
and had no grievances toward either side to "appease."

(2) for the second issue, the cooperative systems such as Kaiser Permanente
and PPC in Houston/Portland have already shown you don't need all 330 million
under one system to make this work. www.medcoops.info www.ppcwebsite.org

The nonprofit cooperative structure (where 1500 members in a chapter the size
of a high school is enough to run their own program and get the same discounts as larger groups)
can be adapted and implemented into GIVEN structures, companies and institutions.
(I also have suggested implementing the cooperative health care benefits into
the party precinct structures, where likeminded people are already organized into groups of 2500-3000)

Thus night_son instead of fighting over public schools, public housing, and prison contracts,
the GIVEN structures can be reorganized through COOPERATIVE structures
and better serve the populations already allocated to those centers.

This isn't reinventing the wheel, but redistributing the weight of the populations demands
on the current facilities already throughout cities and states, and making them work better!

(3) As for the last point, you are obviously well ahead of the education curve on this one!
The people who think relatively like you are NOT the ones in need of the bulk of this reform.

By organizing by levels, and especially BY PARTY, then we can reach all people in groups.
Parties, in particular, tend to organize people of LIKE beliefs about class and economic expectations and levels.

So the people who are grad student level, and could be part of a team that builds campuses and
business districts to be self governing, are not going to be subject to the programs
that are built to help people still learning to manage their own households and business budgets.

First step I suggest is to organize people by district, and by school community
and PARTIES. Also churches and nonprofits are able to manage the type of community relations
for longterm infracture planning and campus development.

As you said, we already have different beliefs, politics and socioeconomic expectations going on.
Organizing people to agree on policies isn't making that any worse, but identifying
and recognizing these differences already there!

Either you AGREE on a policy so you can run a school community on the same standards.
Or if you DISAGREE you form your own neighborhood association and learn to take
RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences of the policies you DO support!

What I find night_son By the time people look at the costs and consequences
of what they THINK THEY BELIEVE IN, if they cannot afford it, that means they
have to go along with the people whose judgment and policies exist to PREVENT those costs
they can't afford. So they would have to come up with A BETTER SOLUTION they can pay for!

They learn quicker that way, when forced to pay themselves for the policies they want.
That's when you learn WHY certain systems are set up as they are!
Part of the education process, and learning respect.