Utopian States: Striving for Perfection

Prerequisites for a utopian government:

 1)      The constitution would have a bill of rights that would enumerate all the rights of the people.  Every right necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be listed.

2)      The constitution would specify that the ONLY right of government is to protect the rights of every citizen.

3)      The representatives would be selected randomly from a pool of literate and educated people thus guaranteeing that every profession, race, color and creed is proportionately represented.

4)      The judicial system would not punish.  The judicial system would cause fair restitution.  Minimal prophylaxis would be used, when necessary, to minimize harm to citizens.

5)      The majority of the people or representatives could NOT vote to spend money on anything that did not benefit all equally.

Additional prerequisites for some utopian city-states:

1)      No company could have more than five employees or make more than fifty times the average wage.

2)      No products made by any large company outside of the city-state could be brought into the city state.

3)      Companies can work together to complete large projects.

4)      All the people must be taught to recognize truth and accurate logic.

5)      All the people must make the effort to achieve and maintain high levels of mental and physical health.

Most democracies will never create a utopia.

Government is what the majority wants it to be.  There is only ONE government for all of us.  Only one set of laws, one tax code, one court system, one police system, one president, two senators, etc.  If the majority voted for a car that their government would make, it might be a black 1968 VW.  Would you buy a black 1968 VW if you had an alternative?

I’m convinced that any truly Utopian government would have options, or at least, a few Utopian states that were totally different from each other.

When you think about government in terms of the blandness/sameness created by a majority vote, then the expression “United we stand, divided we fall” becomes false.  Truly the strongest government may be the government that nurtures differences.

There is NO part of government created by the majority that I desire;  my passion is for a utopia where we can all have the government we want.

Isn’t capitalism a democratic idea?  In a capitalistic economy we vote with our dollars – until a monopoly gains control and gives us only one product.  The optimal society would have many small businesses and many small governments.  Furthermore, any imported products would be only from small businesses that adhere to the principles adhered to by the Utopian businesses.

It’s plausible that a democracy of some type could maintain a Utopian civilization, but could NEVER create one.

While Guede was in Germany, police monitored a phone call during which he explicitly stated that Knox was not present when the murder took place.  This means that Guede, the man already convicted of this murder is, indeed guilty.  This also means that Amanda, now also convicted, wasn’t even there.

 The alleged murder weapon – the key prosecutorial evidence – did not have any blood residue on the blade.  The DNA on the blade was too small to reproduce the results with a repeat test.  [It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to reproduce the results since lab and other contamination could cause errors more than fifty percent of the time.]  The blade was too large to fit the outline in blood of the blade on the sheets and also too large to have produced most of the wounds.  Furthermore, Amanda’s DNA on the knives meant nothing since she used them to cook.  Kercher’s DNA on the blade could have been caused by a distant sneeze or by contamination.  Remember that sensitive tests did not reveal any blood on the blade and that this knife was randomly selected from several in the drawer.  The other knives weren’t tested.  Perhaps the steak knives had blood on the blade.

 There was no comingled blood found in the apartment, just Kercher’s blood comingled with Amanda’s DNA in the apartment (hair, dead skin cells, dandruff, sneeze residue, etc).  Only Guede’s fingerprints, and DNA was found in Kercher’s room, on her body, in the toilet and in her Kertcher’s body.

 The probability of Amanda’s guilt is extremely low.  If the prosecutor framed Amanda, he should go to jail.  The prosecutor’s guilt will never be discovered, however, as he will cut a “deal” with Amanda and reduce her sentence considerably in exchange for a signing a “confession” that he (the prosecutor)  will write. 

The source for this article is from the defense as stated in www.friendsofamanda.com.  A statement that no test is significant unless it can be repeated is mine as well as the prediction that the prosecutor will cut a deal for a lesser sentence in order to protect himself.

This is saved in the category of dystopian justice.  Justice is a crutial test of any utopian society for two reasons:

People have two responses to an attack.  They can fight or take flight.  People can fight two ways.  The can fight with force or truth.  When the truth fails, force is the result.  Any battle of truth requires that all people in that society can recognize source, fact and logic.  All members of a utopian society must be educated to participate intelligently in society.  Truth is a scarce commotity and requires proper validation.  Furthermore, people have to be trained to recognize the truth when they see it.

The Millgram experiment may explain why Amanda Knox is now in an Italian jail rather than at home, celebrating Christmas, graduating, getting a job and getting married.

From: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6759992/Amanda-Knox-prosecutors-in-Italy-hit-back-at-US-critics.html

The chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, Giuliano Mignini, said the criticism from the US was “unacceptable”. There have been accusations of unreliable DNA evidence and a coerced confession. But Mr Mignini said: “[The Americans] are saying there’s not enough proof to convict these two kids, but how is it possible to argue that? The evidence was scrutinized by 19 judges.” Lawyers for Knox and Sollecito are already beginning to prepare their appeals against the verdict. The first appeal is expected to start in late 2010. 

The following is from: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 The Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,  and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: “Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?” In other words, “Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?”

Milgram’s testing revealed that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.  Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, “The Perils of Obedience”, writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources

The lead prosecutor has introduced not one, but 19 quasi authority figures.  However, one good fact, one good video is worth 19 million quasi  authority figures.

Another way to express the prosecutor’s tactics the fallacy of an appeal to authority.  From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

The UtopianStates would send in the A team to rescue Amanda if that billionaire ever helped us…

Question: Wasn’t Amanda’s blood comingled in the basin with the victim’s blood?

No, Meredith’s blood was only comingled with Amanda’s DNA (her hair, skin cells, etc), not her blood. Since Amanda lived there, this is totally irrelevant pseudo evidence. The DNA evidence and fingerprints actually prove that Amanda is innocent. Yes, her DNA should be found everywhere. However, Meredith’s room was free of any of Amanda’s fingerprints and DNA. (1/4) Rudy Guede’s fingerprints and DNA were everywhere in the victim’s room, on her clothes, in the crapper, and by some reports, semen in the victim.  There are also his bare footed footprints in the bathroom. (1/4)

The cell phones and computers show NO communication between Guede and Amanda or Sollecito. (1/2) Amanda’s testimony also proved she was innocent. In 50 plus hours of interrogation under extreme duress, she only said that if she had to imagine being there, she would have imagined a scream. (1/4) Maybe something was lost in translation.

 No witness or cellmate, or boyfriend implicated her in the crime and she’s been in prison for two years. Don’t you think her cell is bugged?. They probably enjoy watching her.  (1/4)

The cartwheels, the confusion about who killed her roommate, the kissing and face book don’t prove anything at all. Perhaps there is even a slight indication she is naïve/innocent. There are spoken indications that she is innocent based on the fact she said some of the things I said when I once had hugely trumped charges made against myself. (1/2)

 I put some odds in my the previous paragraph. I’m not implying they are evidence.  I just want to make a point that the probability of her guilt could be calculated statistically.  One would need statistics that showed how frequently the situations I’ve indicated correlated to a confident guilty verdict. If you multiply each event together to get a probability it is 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/2 * 1/4 * 1/2 = 1/256.  In other words, there is statistically only a 1/256 chance that Amanda is guilty.  The numbers are only examples.  To calculate a real probability mathematicians, forensic scientists, and lawyers have to work together to create accurate probabilities.  My guess: Amanda has only a 1/256 chance of statistically being guilty.

 The number is meaningless; the method is not. Go MIT!!! Ya up to the challenge?

Some of the data came from FriendsofAmanda.com.  Some came from 48 hours and some came from the seven hour presentation on CNN the night of the verdict.  The data may not be totally accurate.  The method of making a statistical guilt/innocent calculation is what I am proposing and trying to sell (for the sake of a more utopian justice system).   Please leave comments below.  I will make the necessary corrections to make accurate.

GIA, Italy — The parents of American student Amanda Knox are being investigated for alleged defamation for saying Italian police abused their daughter before arresting her in the 2007 slaying of her British roommate.

Curt Knox told AP Television News on Saturday that he and his ex-wife, Edda Mellas, received notice of the investigation Friday as they arrived in Italy for the final week of hearings in their daughter’s case.

He said he found the timing odd, given that a verdict in the case is expected at the end of the week.

Italian news agency ANSA said Knox’s parents were being investigated for alleged defamation stemming from an interview they gave Britain’s Sunday Times in June 2008 in which the father alleged police had physically and verbally abused his daughter during questioning before she was arrested.

Police have denied harming Knox.

The Italian government seems to think it is OK to them to all gang up and libel one American, but get outraged at any attempt at defense! Italian cases are tried in the media, but it apparently it is supposed to be a one way flow from government. Does Italy have freedom of speech?

Italy won’t allow Amanda to be tried over here because Americans have the death penalty. Then they show us a far worse judicial system. Talk about being hypocritical!

Amanda Knox was Italy’s “Woman of the Year”

http://www.seattlecrimeblog.com/tags/amanda_knox/
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … =rss-world
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/
http://www.newser.com/tag/16781/1/amanda-knox.html

This one is prejudiced against Amanda:
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj … t_last_ch/

Amanda and Dog

Based on the true story of Dee Roberts, a 24 year-old African American single mother of four living in a small Texas town when she is dragged away from work one day in handcuffs, and then dumped in the women’s county prison. The local district attorney leads an extensive drug bust, sweeping her housing project with military precision. Dee soon discovers that she has been charged as a drug dealer.

Even though she has no prior drug record and no drugs were found on her in the raid, she is offered a hellish choice: plead guilty and go home as a convicted felon or remain in prison, jeopardizing her custody and risking a long prison sentence. She chooses to fight the unyielding criminal justice system, risking everything in a battle that forever changes her life and the Texas justice system.

Even more shocking are the statistics at the end of the movie. America has the largest prison population in the world. Ninety percent of the people are in prison because of plea “bargains”. Ninety five percent of convictions are without a trial by jury.

Unfortunately, threats of huge prison sentences extort people into accepting felony charges that they haven’t committed.

I personally can vouch for the pattern of judicial misconduct depicted by the movie. When government gives perks for convictions, or judges get kickbacks for sending children to the detention centers of their friends, then big change is needed. Citizens of the USA need an alternate justice system. I petition the United Nations to provide the world with an alternative.

Fact: People have the right to life and the necessities thereof.
Fact: People have the right to own property.
Fact: People have the right to a government that doesn’t discriminate.

Corollary: We need as many jobs as there are people that wish to work.
Corollary: If a government program – like free trade – diminishes jobs, they need to be replaced by government programs. {Unfortunately, a tiny majority of economists and politicians still think that free trade (trade without tariffs) does NOT cause job shrinkage. Protectionism has become a bad work as Americans have been lead to believe we are so superior that we can out produce those willing to work for less than a dollar an hour.}

Government should propose a few pie charts of the way they are going to spend OUR money and WE should vote on the chart we favor. Personally, spending money on home security and police is my least favorite way of creating jobs. To be fair, manufacturing and farming need more government money (or tariffs).

Should the USA spend a dime on manufacturing to return a quarter worth of taxes or do we spend a dollar on government jobs to return a quarter worth of taxes? It seems like a no-brainer. Money spent on manufacturing and farming produces a positive return.

4.)  Are the Utopian States capitalistic?

I would hope that they are partly capitalistic.

The Utopian States should endeavor to keep businesses small and owned entirely by the workers.  Small companies should be family sized with less than twenty employees.  Products produced by large monopolistic external corporations should be taxed with a sales tax proportional to their size.

There is no stock market {hopefully} in any of the Utopian states as the workers fully own their own company.  Small companies can link up in one building to assemble products of magnitude – like a plane.  An aircraft manufacturing company, for example, may be comprised of 1000 smaller companies.  Each of these small companies owns their own tools and floor space.

The effort is to return to the size of businesses America had during the 1800’s.  During this golden age people loved their businesses and independence.  The small business owners were the most respected people in America (History of Small Businesses in America).

5.) Do the Utopian States have Goodie Goodie people and people that go nuts and commit mass murder?

The Utopian States {hopefully} has a plan in place where everybody has their suspicions investigated.  Of course the people that want someone else investigated will also be investigated.  It is only fair.  Facts would be recorded in a data base.  If enough people record their suspicions about a person, that person would undergo a major investigation and hopefully receive the help he needs.

On the other hand, if a person reports others friviously, the investigation whould show that this person’s reports don’t merit serious future consideration.

1. Are the various Utopian States like those described by Thomas Mores’ Utopia?

No. Thomas More’s Utopia was based on an even distribution of property as revealed by the following quotes from his novel.

{…} “Though to speak plainly my real sentiments, I must freely own that as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily: not justly, because the best things will fall to the share of the worst men; nor happily, because all things will be divided among a few (and even these are not in all respects happy), {…}

{…} that till property is taken away there can be no equitable or just distribution of things, nor can the world be happily governed: for as long as that is maintained, the greatest and the far best part of mankind will be still oppressed with a load of cares and anxieties. not excepting the very persons of his subjects: and that no man has any other property, but that which the King out of his goodness thinks fit to leave him. And they think it is the prince’s interest, that there be as little of this left as may be, as if it were his advantage that his people should have neither riches nor liberty; {…}

{…} they might seem better, as certainly they are, yet they are so different from our establishment, which is founded on property, there being no such thing among them, that I could not expect that it would have any effect on them; but such discourses as mine, which only call past evils to mind and “Though to speak plainly my real sentiments, I must freely own that as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily: {…}

{…} From whence I am persuaded, that till property is taken away there can be no equitable or just distribution of things, nor can the world be happily governed: for as long as that is maintained, the greatest and the far best part of mankind will be still oppressed with a load of cares and anxieties. {…}

{…} again to a good habit, as long as property remains; and it will fall out as in a complication of diseases, that by applying a remedy to one sore, you will provoke another; and that which removes the one ill symptom produces {…}

The constitution of the various Utopian States grants the right to own property. Ownership is one of the natural rights. The constitution further makes it the duty of government to protect and optimize the natural rights of man. Consequently, the Utopian States is Not the Utopia described by Thomas More with the exception that both endeavor to be perfect societies.

2. Are the Utopian States socialistic?

No. The various Utopian States are not socialistic. The natural right to own property is enumerated by the constitution and protected by the government. Senior to the right to own property is the right to life and access to the necessities of life. The constitution of the various Utopian City States makes it the duty of government to ensure that all have access to the necessities of life. This right to the necessities of life does not preclude the right to own property, hence the various Utopian States are NOT socialistic.

Furthermore, the various Utopian States are all different. The constitutions are all basically similar in that government is required to protect the natural rights of the citizens. Each bill of rights may be different as the interpretation of the natural rights may be different. The constitutional methods of enforcing those natural rights may also be different. Some of the Utopian States may protect the rights of the poor more than the rights of the middle class and vice versa.

3) When will the first Utopian City State be built?

We are waiting for a billionaire philanthropist to help. Although only tens of millions are required, the philanthropist must have sufficient capital to help without hurting himself in the event the return on his investment takes years.