Do we want a democracy or not? For me, the ambiguity--we're kind of wishy washy on this question--situates us at the core of the problem. We seem to want democracy and not want it. For some, it seems to not matter as long as people in Gestapo-like uniforms aren't barging into most of our lives and turning our neighborhoods into camps. We seem to not care as long as we can still buy a car or board a plane. Make some money. Eat well enough. We seem to accept whatever the political reality is as long as we can buy a good enough cell phone and watch TV shows and find other kinds of entertainment to our liking. We seem okay as long as we have the freedom to buy products we want or give us some kind of social status.
Unfortunately, when George W. Bush told the country to go out and shop to prove to the terrorists we won't let them hinder our freedom, purchasing and freedom became intricately linked as not just the symbol of American Democracy but as its major arena for residents on Main Street. Purchases then have become symbolic degrees of freedom. The problem then has to do with our definition and application of democracy.
Practically speaking, many of us would like to see a new political party that addresses the issues of Main Street and its Side Streets, including Poverty Street, Food Stamp Street, Foreclosure Street, Homeless Street, and Hopeless Street. Most people I've talked with would like to see a new party arise that can withstand attacks and dismissals from both major parties, a new party that can't be conveniently or tritely slotted as the left's answer to the right's Tea Party.
For this reason, one of the best chances for a third party (representing Main Street at the Table) to get traction is to learn and employ new tools in establishing itself. It must outsize, outsmart or outrun not just the Corporate State (its polar opposite) but its three political parties, Democrats, Republicans and Liberatarians. What's needed is a party that is savvy, stable and solidly ethical and compassionate, one that is willing to do what it takes to redistribute the wealth and cut the general work week in half.
The combined wealth of the 85 richest people in the world is equal to that of 3.5 billion people -- or half the global population -- according to a report by Oxfam.
Click on the graphic to enlarge.
The report states, "The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world."The nature of this statistic suggests Main Street has crippled itself through complacency. With no cure from Main Street beneficiaries (the wealthy elite) in sight, Main Street must heal itself. One indicator that the time is ripe is irrational thinking on the part of the wealthy elite. Some of these owners are even absurdly comparing themselves to Jews under Nazis or claiming minority status. Who can even comment on such a ridiculous notion?
Among the report's other findings, it notes that 70 percent of the world's population reside in countries where income inequality has risen since the 1980s and 1 percent of families in the world own nearly half, 46 percent, of the world's wealth, or $110 trillion.
Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/richest-85-own-half-worlds-wealth/#ixzz2re1EuPJn Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook
I personally like the Egalitarian Party with its basic platform the redistribution of wealth, revaluing of money and Wall Street, and restructuring of the work week based on creating a healhty ratio between work and liesure. Perhaps as important is establishing a new system of organizing society, one based in ethics and compassion in which class and caste are eliminated, a society in which everyone "has" and arenas and resources exist so that each individual can pursue his or her individual highest potential.
End of Notes