Thoughout one's life, one is faced with the oppressing reality that there are those with greater power and influence than oneself.

Those with power seek to increase their power. To maintain and appease this thirst, others are used as if they were nothing more than a means.

It is no coincidence that power gets driven into the hands of the few at the expense of the many. But eventually the great masses realize that they have a strength that cannot be diminished but only increased by their oppression.

Sympathy becomes empathy. Apathy turns into drive. The people desire to be heard. They wish to restore justice.

I have no doubt that people are generally good. To achieve oppression, the Unjust coach their language in terms of right and wrong; moral and immoral. They must, for if they did not, the conscience of the individual and the collective would not allow the injustice.

Achieving independence from the British crown started the United States down the long path towards a government which acts as the instrument of the governed.

The tables were turned. The people became the sovereigns. Checks were put into place to ensure that the corrupting power of one government institution was balanced by the power of others. Above all, through the democratic process, the people became the ultimate check against their tool.

The Bill of Rights acknowledged that certain behavior shall not morph the peoples' government into a weapon of their oppression. Even during the enactment of the Bill of Rights, concern was given to the possibility that listing certain rights would threaten those rights left unmentioned. The response was the 9th Amendment which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution acts as a protector of the people against the "tyranny of the majority." But the people are generally good, I said! Yes, but even those who mean well can go astray.

Even as far back as ancient Athens it has been known that in a democracy, the people may be led to conclusions contrary to their own self-interests. Thucydides recognized this when he questioned whether Athens, under the rule of Pericles, was really a democracy at all. Such a good leader was Pericles that he was repeatedly elected, but the people through his leadership had effectively lost their popular sovereignty.

The Anti-administration party which would later become the Democratic-Republicans recognized this threat. A strong central government was a means by which control could be rested from the people.

The Democratic Party that emerged from the Democratic-Republicans is an expression of the peoples' will.

The anti-abolitionist and later pro-segregationist Democrats of the South were wrong, but this was not concluded until all of the peoples' voices were heard, including the blacks.

The Democratic Party has become the means by which power is restored to the people. We hold as our chief responsibility to ensure that the people, from whom government derives its power, remain free.

This has meant opposing a central bank to protect from the moneyed interests of 19th-century New England, to enacting civil rights legislation providing for equal opportunity regardless of race, religion, sex or age.

We oppose the reach of a tyrannical executive and the corrupting influences of a corporate-run media. We believe in the great power of an educated public to make the right choice.

We are a party of activists each trying in our own way, and with our own vote to make the world a better place; for us, for our brethren, and for our children.

We are all leaders, guiding this great nation to perform its duty for its citizens.

We believe in the power of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people have as their device the government by which to achieve a greater society, and we, the Democratic Party, believe in our leaders: the people.

One thing that has been bothering me lately is defining terms used for philosophical discussion. (Those who know me, know that I am working on an essay dealing with freedom and its relation to rights.)

I come largely from a math background where it seems that we define terms, and then use the definitions to create proofs. But, it doesn't seem like it would be appropriate to just define a term according to what I think it should be and then use those definitions to analyze the terms. Especially if those terms already have a common meaning throughout society.

Another approach is the dialectic. But, it seems to me that the dialectic relies heavily upon one's native language. So, when defining terms used for discussion, what is the most helpful approach at arriving at what is the truth?

Acquiring wealth allows people to have more leisure time. This is not generally a point with which people would take issue. Wealth allows people to not work as much since they have reserves on which to fall back. Further, wealth allows one to pay others to perform tasks that one would otherwise have the onus of performing. Likewise, wealth, or the pursuit thereof, spurs innovation in that one must trim costs by being more efficient or design new products that have marked advantages over the predecessors. However, wealth, and the pursuit thereof, is not the only, or perhaps not even the best method of achieving success for the commons.

Based on the above assessment of the benefits of wealth, one could say that being successful necessitates acquiring wealth. Let us reconsider this proposition.

Greed, in this case considered as the pursuit of excessive wealth, will not be addressed beyond saying that we shall not acknowledge greed as being a noble trait, and certainly not a desirable trait. Capitalism can be said to be based upon an innate greediness of people, but we shall instead view it as being based on the desire to become successful by having greater amounts of leisure time. This desire for greater leisure time might actually be what some consider to be greed.

Being successful, that is, maximizing one's leisure time, does require that only one criterion is met: we must devise new methods of meeting our needs that require less time for completion than our existing methods. Success for the artist -- one who generally would not consider being more efficient at his craft to be a blessing or a measure of success -- would be measured by the amount of time he has to commit to his art. Success for the philosopher would also be the amount of time the philosopher has to commit to his thought.

Being successful then can be achieved by sharing knowledge. By sharing knowledge, one is able to advance not only those around him, but himself too. One receives the criticisms, recommendations, and constructive feedback to one's ideas that then advance the collective knowledge of society. Through this shared knowledge, we are able to be more innovative by advancing technology. Through technology, we become more efficient, and therefore have more time to devote to our pleasures.

The drive for success would then be the key to advancing society; not greed nor capitalism. When knowledge is shared, everyone then has the chance to be more successful. When wealth is acquired, only one person sees the immediate benefits; and, through the acquiring of wealth, one must take from the wealth of others, thereby diminishing their ability for success.

When knowledge is shared, everybody wins.

Electoral Reform

• Standardized national paper ballot and vote by mail
• Working elections is considered a civic duty like jury duty
• Everybody is allowed to watch the votes be counted
• Approval voting is instituted (choose the candidate or candidates of which you approve, may select more than one candidate in the same race)
• Nationalized ballot access laws for national offices (Congressional offices and President)
• Presidential elections based on popular vote