Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Declaration of the Economic Rights of U.S. Citizens

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 3, 2011, 6:15 p.m. EST by tomp (29)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Someone mentioned something earlier on this forum about an amendment to the Constitution spelling out a U.S. citizen's economic rights. Though I believe this is a noble long-term goal, something more immediate is needed.

What you need now is a Declaration of sorts, one which spells out in simple and concise language the fundamental rights of individuals with respect to banks and corporations.

I suggest looking at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) as a prime example. Despite not having any technical legal binding effect, it has become customary law over time and has the effect of law on all U.N. members.

Such a Declaration could serve several valuable purposes. For one, it could create a moral baseline which would eventually become customary law of sorts. What I mean by that is, though as of now it would not be legally binding law, it could have that effect over time if in the beginning you have a couple of big companies (i.e. Google, Starbucks, to name two fairly progressive and relatively non-greedy companies) who pledge to abide by this Declaration. Over time other companies, sensing its growing acceptance and legitimacy, may follow suit, lest they be considered relics of a greedy and archaic past. In this way, then, the Declaration could become an instrument exerting powerful moral pressure, where such pressure never previously existed.

Such a Declaration of the Economic Rights of U.S. Citizens could be written and accepted in the same manner in which all decisions made by the Protest have up to now: a dynamic process of pure democracy in which anyone and everyone has a say. It could potentially be a very exciting process, and I for one would love to be a part of it. If you were to do this, please let me know, and I will help in any way I can.


  • Tom P.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by tomp (29) 2 years ago

I am of the view that this preliminary step is necessary for laying down, in writing, the clear and legitimate demands of the protestors, put forth in simple, concise language

[-] 1 points by Debbie (1) 2 years ago

I guess this would be the time and place to announce to the public that a national financial institution actually embezzled eighty million dollars right out of my trust account; instantly landing me in the streets at fifty four years old, with my credit and business unlawfully destroyed by more federal crimes. This was in 2004 and I've reported this federal crime to the United States authorities constantly since 2001. They ignore me from behind closed doors of secrecy with form letters. Not only this they watched the crimes continue until they were sure I'd die in the streets.

These kind of crimes are what else is going on in America, but you'll never hear about them; the mainstream and alternative media also ignore this.

Ladies and gentlemen we are living in a financial holocaust.

I'd be on the front lines with you but don't have the money to put gas in my truck; I've lived in a tent for two years.

God Bless you all.


pro-democracy reforms as of now must be enacted by the very politicians who are being portrayed by the protestors as anti-democratic. Otherwise, why would you need pro-democracy reforms? Also, the two-party system is not legislated by Congress - it happened in the 18th century, and though third party candidates have tried to break through in the past (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, Eugene V. Debs five) times, Ross Perot twice) they have not met with success.

Legislation abolishing the two-party system would never pass, considering the politicians currently in there are part of the two-party system.

Furthermore, pro-democracy reforms, whatever that entails, must necessarily be passed by those who are currently being accused of sleeping in bed with Wall Street.

A Declaration, meanwhile, is more likely to be picked up by a congressman or congresswomen, since it will be neutral in nature and not accuse anyone of being anti-democratic.

These are things you must consider, as reforming anything requires tact and due caution.

[-] 1 points by turdfurguson (21) 2 years ago

this is brain dead nonsense


Not helpful turd.


may not be helpful but still correct


If it's not helpful then why post?



I do think this is interesting but I don't believe it's an issue that can be adequately addressed in this way. I think we should work towards pro-democracy reforms in how politicians are elected and the two-party system. Once that's in place this sort of thing would be possible I believe.

Best, GP

[-] 1 points by johnbarber (39) from Altamonte Springs, FL 2 years ago

First we need to amend the way we elect our government. The two party system has outlived it’s usefulness. Since the advent of radio through tv, cable and now the internet dialogue between the two parties and their advocates has increased hostilities between what at it’s core are Americans. It has turned reasonable and civil discourse away from the betterment of the whole to simply the betterment of one segment of the population. This is unacceptable and if we allow it to follow to it’s logical end will only lead to actual bloodshed and violence like Brooks beating Sumner in the Summer of 1856. Deep seated hostility between the two parties is nothing new and mudslinging and the flexing of the truth to fit party lines is as old as the Republic but for the most part there was the vastness of the states and the slow transfer of information that let civil heads prevail for most of our history. In our current times with the lightning quick transfer of thought and the non-stop inundation of information things move too fast. There are also bonfire fanning supporters that don’t seek the truth but to inflame the population only to their way of thinking that have striking resemblance to the most infamous and evil of regimes. If we wish to stop our democracy from going down and old familiar blood stained road then continue with business as usual, if we want to demonstrate to the world the greatness of our ideas and foresight then we will consider this fundamental change to our process. Two sides of an argument only make the long standing and deep seated passions worse, we don’t expect two people that are divorcing to settle their problems on their own, there is a third party that balances the scales. In this representation for our country shouldn’t be allowed to only have two sides to it, a viable third party is necessary to prevent the constant tugging back and forth of America. Currently two senators are elected to represent each state in the union, under the new foundation each state would have three, one to represent each elected party. Elections would be held as usual and in the same format the only difference being that a representative from 3 parties would get elected. The party with the most votes would be designated as Chair head and get more responsibilities and prestige in Congress. This would allow the tea party, the green party, the libertarian or any other 3rd party gain a foothold and a voice in the national debate. To extend the example from above, during a divorce you don’t allow just one party to make all the choices involved it just creates a tug of war situation as each side gains control. Representatives would be voted in the same manner but a set of 3 per 2.5 million population with the leading vote receiver again being designated Chair head. Chair heads would be considered key leadership roles tasked with the current responsibilities of the senate and house (treaties/war declaration/proposing legislation/etc), junior heads would only vote on bills and sit on committee. This way of doing things currently adds only 50 members to the Senate and 3 to the House.


not bad, but again the Amendment process is long and will take many, many years. You need to take some preliminary steps first, and talk to people currently in power, which means dems and reps. Also, I find troubling the requirement that one person from each party must be elected, if I read correctly ("a representative from 3 parties WOULD get elected" (emphasis added)). Also, doesn't giving the Party with the most votes just give them more power, and hence not change significantly the power divide currently plaguing our current system? Also, two sides of an argument don't necessarily make the long standing and deep-seated passions worse, and the divorce metaphor presupposes that a third party will serve as mediator between the Dems and Reps.

Again, I know where you're coming from, but what the movement needs is a clearer sense of direction and of purpose, and a Declaration is a logical first step. Amending the way we elect our government will take a while, lest you prefer violent upheaval.

Remember, this isn't Egypt.


Correct, Declaration is the first and only step. Without coherence and an organizing then nothing can come from it.


Think the general assembly will approve?


how do you propose reforming the two party system?


Well, this is up for discussion and there may be better ways than what I'm currently proposing but I think public financing of elections coupled with some sort of instant-runoff voting such that 3rd party candidates could be elected as well would be a huge victory for democracy. This is something that a huge number of people could get behind, from both sides of the political spectrum.


what's instant runoff voting?




no problem bud.

[-] 1 points by Student (94) 2 years ago