With the establishment of the three-tiered enforcement system, we will have created three different levels of offenses. As such, it is appropriate for each level (Federal, State, and Local) to maintain it’s own judicial system. That does not mean that each level needs to operate by different procedures or be bound by different basic principles, but rather that each tier be responsible for trying those offenders who fall within its jurisdiction. As with the combined Justice buildings, Federal and State criminal courts could operate out of a single court complex, while the local courts could preside in multiple local locations. Again, this consolidation of physical locations combined with a central resource and depository center would result in lower costs and improved efficiency.

The Constitution describes many protections for us, as citizens, if we are suspected of having committed a crime. We are protected from police searches without a legal warrant; we are protected from prosecution without a legal indictment; we can not be tried twice for the same crime if we are found not guilty in the initial trial; we can not be compelled to testify against ourselves; we have the right to a speedy trial; and we can not be fined excessive fines or bail, or be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments. The Constitution provides for the protection of the accused and convicted, yet it remains curiously silent about the rights of society in relation to the rights of the convicted. The right of society to be safe from criminal individuals should be greater than the rights of a convicted offender. This is where the system begins to break down.

Rather than be the final stop in the search for truth, our courts are often anything but. Instead, they have become a place of obfuscation, where the truth often runs second fiddle to the games and guiles of the attorneys and judges who seek to increase their reputations rather than protect the public and who engorge their wallets through endless litigation. Evidence that is relevant to a case if often excluded, while inconceivable defense theories are thrown about as facts. Defendants are portrayed as victims of society rather than as individuals responsible for their own actions and procedural errors can convict an innocent man or set a guilty man free. Too often, trials turn on twists of emotion instead of factual evidence.

Prior to taking any case to trial, defendants should be given an opportunity to view the evidence against them and to present their side of the story in what would amount to a short mini-trial. Many suspects, once confronted with an abundance of actual evidence, will admit to their guilt. These individuals should be immediately taken into court for sentencing procedures. Designated courts at each level would have this as their primary task. This would allow for other cases to move more quickly through the system. For those cases where the suspect denies guilt, certain rules and procedures could allow for trials to move more quickly and factually through the courts.

First, juries should be seated randomly, with the least amount of pre-examination possible, so that attorneys on either side can’t “stack the deck” in their favor. To achieve this, jury service should be nearly impossible to shirk, with illness of a juror or their family member, unavoidable, verifiable travel commitments, or severe financial hardship being among the only reasons for postponing a juror’s service. Jurors should not be asked questions about moral beliefs or leanings, because like it or not, we all have them to one degree or another, and if a jury is to made up of common citizens, then pretty much anyone can do the job. Finally, juries should be required to determine only the guilt or innocence of a defendant. The punishments for most crimes should be posted with the laws themselves, and again when the charges are brought forth. This would allow for jurors to focus more on the evidence at hand without having to worry about how to sentence a person they may find guilty.

With recent leaps in forensic technology, there are many more tools available today for determining probable guilt or innocence of a defendant. Based on sound scientific principles, prosecutors are now able to identify DNA evidence at many of the most violent crime scenes. They have the ability to reconstruct crimes to determine what took place. The prevalence of surveillance cameras catch many criminals in the act of committing a crime. Financial trails can be traced, fingerprints can be identified, and weapons can be tested and matched to violent acts. All of these techniques, when used properly, can help to confirm a defendant’s innocence or guilt. Our reorganization of the investigative arm of criminal justice would help to ensure that these tools would be used in a consistent manner and that their findings would be accurate. If prosecutors can provide several examples of forensic evidence that can be verified and irrefutably bind a defendant to a crime, then this evidence should be accepted as factual and not be rebutted as voodoo science. This acceptance would end the need for “expert witnesses” who appear at a high cost to both the defendant and the public, but who serve to confuse juries by challenging accepted science.

If forensic evidence should be accepted as fact, as described above, then eye-witness testimony, unrecorded conversations, individual perceptions, and investigative suppositions should be introduced not as fact, but as helpful, though not necessarily accurate information that helps to build motive and means. Such circumstantial evidence is the common sense that explains the existence of the forensic evidence. It is with this evidence that defense arguments can and should be directed. It is in this area of testimony that a defense lawyer can foment the most uncertainty in the minds of jurors. Reasonable alternative explanations should be given whatever value they deserve when compared to the life experiences of the jurors and any relevant information about the defendant’s normal activities.

The trial system could be further streamlined by reducing the amount of backroom sparring that occurs and often prolongs a trial. While often done by the defense, prosecutors are known to engage in these tactics as well. Much of these arguments concern the admissibility of evidence. By adopting the rules of factual evidence and subjective evidence outlined above, such discussions could be greatly reduced. Further, adoption of these rules could also lead to a decrease in appealable issues after conviction, again reducing the workload in our courts and reducing the costs associated with criminal trials.

Finally, judges serving on criminal courts should be the ones who introduce the charges to the jury, explaining in advance the penalty for the crime, as well as advising the jury on the different kinds of evidence they will be hearing. During the trial, a judge should act as both referee and team captain, making sure each side adheres to the rules of evidence while moving things along at a manageable pace. Once a verdict has been reached, a judge should then pronounce sentence immediately and the defendant should begin their rehabilitation or other punishment.

From this point on, appeals should be limited and based upon new factual evidence or the discovery of wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution. (Prosecutors and police investigators, as well as witnesses in a trial should face serious sanctions if it is later to be found that they knowingly fabricated evidence to convict an innocent person.) Semantic irregularities or procedural errors should not negate hard, solid evidence of guilt or free guilty criminals.

These initial changes to our criminal court system could improve the fairness and consistency of trials. The streamlined evidence process, intended to bring forth the facts and separate the subjective evidence would mean quicker trials and lower overall costs on all sides, something only the lawyers will be saddened by. And the use of pre-arranged sentencing guidelines and limited appeals would increase the likelihood that criminals would be made to answer for their digressions.

I have offered two pieces of the reformed criminal justice system: the restructuring of jurisdiction and establishment of a three-tiered enforcement and investigative hierarchy, and a streamlined criminal court program. Both elements eliminate waste and offer society more security by focusing on prosecuting criminal behavior. Next up…reforming our system of punishment.

Currently, the federal government has several enforcement and investigative agencies operating in the country. They range from the U.S. Marshal’s to the FBI to the Secret Service to the BATF. The list could go on, I’m sure, but I think you see what I mean. Clearly, the federal government has, and has had, the constitutional mandate to provide domestic security for the citizens of the nation. In fact, the Constitution provides, in several of its Articles, that Congress retain the ability to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court (Article I, Section 8.9 & Article III, Section 1) and to create law and punishment for several specific crimes, including counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. (Article I, Section 8) The Constitution also provides that Congress shall guarantee every state in the Union, upon the application of the legislature, protection against domestic violence. (Article IV, Section 4) These first two provisions that I mention establish the foundation by which the federal government has the right and the duty to legislate and prosecute criminal acts. The last provision is the more important one though. It is this provision that could provide the states the opportunity to enact the changes I have proposed. Therefore, by virtue of the Constitution, if the various state legislatures were to vote to cede the power of enforcement and prosecution of the worst crimes to the federal government, the Constitution requires that the federal government assume those tasks.

Ceding this jurisdiction to a federal agency would result in a national criminal code. This code would establish uniformity across the various states with regards to the crimes under the federal jurisdiction. Prohibited behaviors would be unlawful in all fifty states, to the same degrees, and with the same punishments. Investigative techniques for these crimes would be consistent nation wide with access to the finest crime solving technology available. Prosecution for these crimes would be fairly applied and not dependent upon social status or education. This would require a more consistently trained and highly skilled group of workers, but would also result in more uniformity in the way these crimes were investigated and prosecuted. This uniformity would provide greater over-all security to all citizens by removing the barriers and incentives that currently allow serious criminals to avoid detection and prosecution simply by changing their location. The federal agency would also be responsible for conducting trials and for administering the punishment to those offenders who committed national crimes.

Once the states have transferred jurisdiction of the worst crimes to the Federal Criminal Justice Agency, the rest becomes a matter of reorganization. At the federal level, we would need to eliminate the current cadre of agencies and create a single entity responsible for enforcing, investigating, and prosecuting said crimes. The consolidation of forensic laboratories and the sharing of information would streamline the costs associated with enforcing and prosecuting the law. This would also reduce the margin of error in the collection and evaluation of evidence by applying a common standard of practice. Such activities would also have the added benefit of providing a consistent method by which crimes were investigated and tried and help reduce the instances of unjust prosecution or the allegations of unjust prosecutions. Consistent standards would thereby help assure that guilty offenders would be less likely to be released by a jury or judge based on technical problems, thus ensuring that they serve their sentence for their crime.

State agencies, once unburdened with the costs and manpower requirements of investigating major crimes, would be better able to prevent and prosecute those crimes of a lesser nature. Major crimes are usually more costly to investigate and prosecute, and due to the nature of the crimes themselves, those convicted often remain incarcerated for a longer period of time. These costs are growing more every year, making it difficult for states to find the resources to combat the more common, less serious crimes. Since it is often these “mid-level” crimes that are most rampant in society, allowing a state criminal justice agency to focus only on this level of crime would mean that better enforcement could be available. With greater financial resources available for law enforcement, prosecution, rehabilitation or incarceration, states would be better able to punish offenders as they should be punished, rather than giving a slap on the wrists. This would end the revolving door mentality of our correction system because the resources would be available to retrain or retain those offenders. In addition to these tasks, the state agencies would contribute to the federal agency’s information database for certain crimes as well as assist federal agents in detaining or locating suspects.

Our local governments would benefit the most from this restructuring, at least financially. The burden for enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration of criminals would be largely taken out of their domain. Local law enforcement would consist mainly of ensuring that local ordinances were being observed, but would also assist both state and federal agents as needed in detaining or locating suspects. The need for a large local force to protect the citizenry from heinous crime would disappear and the cities and counties could reallocate their budgets accordingly, allowing for more local tax dollars to be used for the community.

Getting back to the Constitution for a minute, Article 6 of the Bill of Rights provides that criminal prosecutions be afforded a speedy and public trial in the district where the crime was committed. This provision was included as a protection to the accused individual to prevent their being convicted by people whose social norms were vastly different or by judges and prosecutors hell bent of some kind of back room retaliation. It may seem that by changing the current system from one of jurisdiction by location to one of jurisdiction by act would run contrary to this concept. Where would federal criminals be prosecuted? What about state offenders? Would there be some centralized national or state crime courts? Applying some old-fashioned Common Sense easily solves this problem.

In order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and still remain fiscally prudent while at the same time restructuring our criminal justice system, each community would be home to a combined Criminal Justice Center. This building would house all three agencies, as well as their investigative laboratories and information databases. By combining these agencies into a central location, the use of tax dollars to maintain multiple facilities would be reduced, as would the associated support staff. These savings could be used to increase the number of investigators or upgrade the forensic technologies or better rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated. The community becomes better protected in a fiscally responsible way and the offender is still provided their constitutional rights of being tried in the district where the offense occurred.

My case for reforming the criminal justice system is based on the notion that some crimes are equally anti-social regardless of location and should thus be categorized as national offenses in order to ensure equal protection for all citizens. It is also based on the idea that our current criminal system is too expensive because of the multitude of similar agencies doing similar jobs while maintaining their independence from each other. This restructuring is only the first step in creating a system that truly works to protect all citizens equally. My next essay will discuss reforms for the prosecution and punishment phase of our criminal system. We can change the way we fight crime, but we also have to change the way we punish or rehabilitate the offender.

In order for a society to function properly, mutually agreed upon rules of conduct, or laws, are established by a consensus of the people through their elected officials. These laws are meant to serve as a guideline for acceptable public behavior as well as establishing penalties for those who break the laws. As citizens, we are bound to observe the laws of the land to the best of our ability. But it is also necessary, and perhaps more important even, to ensure that any law on the books is both necessary and enforceable. It is our task, as involved participants in society, to insist that the laws are applied fairly and that punishments meted out are both appropriate and consistently applied. Also, as stewards of the public purse, we must demand from our elected representatives that the creation, application, and administration of laws and penalties be accomplished in the most economically sound manner possible.

Our current jigsaw puzzle of legal codes, enforcement agencies, prosecutorial districts, and correctional practices is confusing, expensive, and duplicitous. Worse yet, the effectiveness is highly questionable. We are sending more people into our prison system each year, yet crime continues to flourish. We have enacted so many civil codes that many people have no idea whether questionable behavior is in fact illegal behavior or just boorish. Our court systems are overworked, mostly due to unlimited appeals processes, questionably written legal codes, allowable yet unfathomable prosecutorial and defense tactics and spurious civil cases. Our punishment system is rife with individuals serving different sentences for the same crimes, while others are not even prosecuted. We need to rethink our system and reform it so that it better serves the citizens who uphold it.

Because of the many elements involved in reforming our system of justice, I will be breaking this discussion into several essays. In these essays I will discuss Common Sense reforms for the criminal legal system, the civil legal system, the punishment process, and national security issues as they pertain to the physical boundaries of the United States. Such changes will attempt to produce a justice and security system that is more consistently applied, more fiscally responsible, less intrusive in everyday life, and yet still adheres to the protections afforded American citizens by our Constitution. We can then find people who support these reforms and elect them into public office so that the nonsense that passes for leadership and rational legislation can become a thing of the past.

I will begin then, with reform in our criminal legal system. The first concept I’d like to talk about is that of jurisdictional restructuring. What I mean by this is that rather than have duplicated laws for the same crimes in each of our counties and states, we should develop a national criminal code based upon the crimes themselves. This would require the implementation of a three-tiered system of responsibility: crimes handled by a Federal Justice agency, crimes handled by a State Justice Agency, and crimes handled by a Local Justice agency. I know that we have this kind of stratification in place already, but the current system has agencies fighting over resources and boundaries while leaving the public confused and under-protected.

In this new system, the Federal agency would have jurisdiction over all major violent crimes against individuals, crimes against our country that occur within our borders, crimes that involve the misuse or abuse of the public trust, and immigration crimes. The laws and punishments for these acts would be universal in nature, bringing about an end to the disparities that currently exist among the states. Crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, counterfeiting, treason, bribery of public servants, massive fraud, willful environmental destruction and immigration would all fall under the Federal agency’s jurisdiction.

The State agencies would be responsible for most crimes against private and public property, less serious physical crimes against people, fraudulent actions, criminal business codes, and traffic enforcement. These laws would probably be similar from state to state, but could account for differences in regional values and geographical concerns. The citizens of the state, through their state legislatures, would decide the punishments. The State agencies would not be responsible for enforcing or prosecuting those crimes assigned to the Federal agency, but would be available to share information regarding criminal behavior and could assist as needed in an investigatory role.

Our Local agencies would likely be the least burdened of the three, and rightly so. Local enforcement costs are driving many communities to cut their police forces or slash spending in other programs for their citizens. This does not give our cities a leaner, more effective security system, but instead makes us less secure as our populations grow in relation to our dwindling police forces. Local agencies would be charged with handling mostly misdemeanor offenses coinciding with local ordinances, rather than with the major crimes.

In my next essay, I will talk a little about the structure of each of these agencies, how they would work in concert with each other and with society to produce a safer environment for all of us to live in. I will talk about the provisions placed in our national Constitution and how they relate to this new division of duties. Society has the right to expect to be able to live our lives without fear of crime and without the fear of unjust government prosecution. We have the right to expect that criminal behavior is either rehabilitated or the offender removed from the general population. We have the duty to create only good laws, laws based not on various moral opinions or special interests, but on collectively agreed upon premises. And we have the responsibility to make sure that the administration of our criminal legal system does not overburden our public finances by being duplicitous, confusing, and arbitrary.

One of the first tasks of government is to provide security to its citizens. A society without security is nothing more than a loose confederation of people, fighting to maintain a sense of purpose in the face of danger. But there are many levels of security that a government must provide in order to achieve a state of freedom. To maintain geographical sovereignty, a country must secure its borders with its neighbors. To assure the physical security of its citizens, government must enact and enforce laws. To create social stability and promote human advancement, security in the form of health and welfare are established. And to prevent attacks from others and advance the creed of human dignity and freedom, government exports security through military might and alliances, economic bribery and favoritism.

This security blanket, which we rightly expect from our government, is actually more like a patch work quilt, except that too many of the pieces are over-lapping, several squares are missing, and nearly all the rest are frayed from abuse and wear. Once we succumbed to the mindlessness that is Political Correctness, we might as well have opened our doors and welcomed our enemies in to come and steal all of our good silver. In our desire to avoid all risks, including the risk of hurting someone’s feelings or the risk of being unfair, we have essentially lost a sense of purpose in maintaining our security, both inside our country and beyond our borders. We have created laws that favor poor public behavior and tolerate lawlessness. We have created other laws that make criminals out of people who really aren’t criminals in the dangerous sense. We have encouraged, through our legal system, the widespread practice of bending the laws. We have abandoned our borders both on land and at sea.

To hear me tell it like this, it would seem that we are but a step away from anarchy, and of course that’s not really the case. There are many laws on the books that are necessary, mutually agreed upon, and somewhat consistently enforced. Our military, whether actively fighting or in an advisory role, is generally considered the best in the world. And our society seems to continue progressing through the days and years just fine. So then it would seem that we are pretty secure after all, despite the inconsistent patchwork quilt of programs and wasted resources. At least, on the surface anyway.

In order to really understand whether or not we have achieved a real form of security, we first need to know what it is we are trying to secure. This may seem like a foregone conclusion, but unless you acknowledge the things you want to protect, you can’t possibly create a plan to protect them. From the Common Sense standpoint, on a personal level, security means you aren’t afraid of being robbed, killed, starved, homeless, beaten, cheated, or abused by your government. It means peace of mind in day-to-day life. It does not mean that nothing bad will ever happen to you, your friends, or your family. It also does not mean that you will be rich or famous or even happy. But this level of security, when properly designed and deployed, assures a level playing field for all citizens to achieve their goals, provides recourse from wrongs done to you, and bestows punishment to those who would seek to do harm.

Again, using Common Sense on a national level, security is the ability of the government to protect its citizens from attacks by other nations or groups. Through the establishment of a military, we are able to defend ourselves from any enemies at home or abroad. National security also is responsible for maintaining our borders and knowing who and what crosses over them. It is with national security in mind, that relations with other countries occur. Whether those relationships are economic, political, or military in nature, they seek to promote more stability in the world, thus increasing our security. This type of national security does not require that America agree with other countries all of the time. This type of security does not require that America open its doors to the rest of the world either. What it does require is a common sense approach to reforming and then enforcing our border laws, a common sense approach to the resolution of conflicts, and a resolute expectation of the same from other countries in the world.

The men who wrote our Constitution endeavored to create a compact that would establish a system of law and justice to provide these levels of security. They sought to construct a protective shield around the citizen so that the government could not intrude but for the most egregious of crimes. And they required the government to provide proof of guilt before a citizen could be punished. The created the Congress to make laws. The created the Executive branch to enforce the laws. They created the Judiciary to make sure the laws conformed to the ideals set forth in the Constitution. They allowed for an electorate that would control the Congress and Executive branch through direct election and accountable representation. They granted the power to create a national military, but funded it only for two years at a time, to prevent its leaders from trying a hostile take-over. They put everything they could think of in that document to both ensure the common man a level of freedom and security never before known and allow the government to protect and defend the citizens from foreign malevolence. But the world in 1776 was a different place than it is now. For while in their time it was probably taken as a given that Common Sense would prevail in matters of public discourse, in our time it is a rare thing indeed. Had they only known the grave need for its inclusion, I’m sure they would have written a section requiring Common Sense in Politics. As it is, they did the next best thing in leaving us with a Constitution that has evolved through the years, flexible enough to allow some new patches here and there, strong enough to hold together at the seams.

Still, our domestic legal system no longer serves the average citizen. It is rife with corruption and waste. Many of our laws are simply bad laws, creating criminals out of otherwise ordinary, albeit non-conformist people. Some of these laws pertain to drugs and sex. Others concern property use, product liability, tax loopholes, family law. Many more of our laws are written in a way so as to obscure their true purpose or favor certain individuals. Our legal code is as complex as our tax code, and just as full of holes, exceptions, and strange consequences. To further complicate matters, our legal system does not fairly enforce the laws, does not consistently punish offenders, is not readily accessible for civil complaints, and is expensive. These barriers virtually prevent non-criminal or non-wealthy individuals from having their day in court in a timely manner. The complexity of the law, as created by lawyers, precludes people from presenting their own cases in a straight forward manner and getting an honest, common sense judgment.

It is well beyond the time for an overhaul of these systems, both domestically and nationally. They are duplicitous, arbitrary, and very expensive. Our tax dollars are being thrown hand over fist into the purses of lawyers, both in the legislatures and in the courtrooms. Domestically, we should demand a streamlining of the legal code, removing redundancy between federal, local, and state governments and dividing jurisdiction by act rather than location. We must remove those laws that do not infringe upon second parties. We must make the laws simple to understand and know the penalties. We must enforce all the laws, all the time, and apply them fairly regardless of race, religion, sex or status. We must demand strict and appropriate penalties for those who break the law, and reduce the revolving door that is our prison system. We must remold our judiciary system in such a way that provides timely mediation of non-criminal matters, and fair but not eternal appeals provisions for all matters. We must seek out and destroy corruption of the system whenever and wherever it appears. Nationally, we must defend our borders, reformulate our military postures, amend our foreign policies, and foster better relations in the world.

How can we do this? It is simple. Elect politicians who are committed to reform and then write letters to your lawmakers and judges demanding reform. Support common sense initiatives and demand better services. Be informed and involved. To advance freedom and security, we must recognize when change is necessary, we must embrace change when it is for the common good. We must be willing to realign the ways of our forefathers in order to better reflect today’s realities. We must be willing to endure the pains of change, knowing that our struggle is no different than that of our ancestors and our goal is just as noble- to leave the world a better place than we got here. Our country is not living in the same world as it was 230 years ago. Our world has changed and with it so have we. We were born with the capacity to change our environment and to influence our destinies for the betterment of mankind. So far, we haven’t done too well. It’s time to do a lot better.

The first, most important and most effective step you can take is also the easiest one of all. Simply update your voter registration in your county without listing a political party affiliation. Look for a box that states, “I decline to state a political party,” or one that states, “Other:________,” and fill in “Non-Affiliated” or “Non-Partisan.” Do not write “Independent” because that is an actual party. By re-registering yourself in this way, the ranks of the divisive political parties will begin to shrink. Slowly at first, yes, but shrinking all the same. As more and more people recognize this tactic, it will reduce the power and influence of the corrupt organizations that are our current major parties.

Of course, several hundred individuals renouncing party affiliations still isn’t going to be noticed in the grand scheme of things, so step two becomes the next most important part of the process. In order for step one to be effective, we would need many people to re-register. This is where you begin to really make a difference. Step two requires that you inform people of step one. Before you start putting up your hands and backing away, take a deep breath and hear me out. I’m not suggesting that you go out of your way in every conversation you have with people and tell them to re-register as non-affiliated. Rather, when the proper conversation occurs you can offer that you felt as they did and decided to re-register yourself in order to let the politicians know that you no longer supported their actions. Tell them that such an action, multiplied many times over, could result in more candidates to vote for who are not tied to the major parties misguided and divisive party platforms, therefore being more responsive to using common sense. Tell them how simple it is to re-register (you can even e-mail them this article if you want), then tell them to tell someone else when they get a chance. Use your best judgment on when and how often you want to “spread the word,” but keep in mind that zealots aren’t often looked upon too kindly. If you do you part and tell a few friends who end up agreeing with you, they’ll tell a few and so on. If millions of people believe that passing along an e-mail chain will bring good luck, they should see they value in this too.

These first few steps are ones that everyone can take and they will make a difference. But each step from here will require more active levels of involvement. In previous essays I’ve stated that we must find and support a better class of politicians who believe in the common good over the party ideologies. This is a two-pronged problem, and the question for both is the same: How? In our current system of political gamesmanship, it is nearly impossible to find someone both willing to undertake the task while at the same time financially secure enough to withstand the rigors of a lengthy and expensive campaign. Where do you find someone who would stand for common sense government? How can you support that person and make it possible for them to run for election? How can you help their election succeed? There are simple answers to each of these questions, followed, of course, by many a million particulars. I’ll give you the middle ground and let you work it from there.

Where do you find someone to stand for common sense principles? If you’ve ever had a political conversation with someone that didn’t turn into a name-calling, divisive endeavor, you’ve just met two possible candidates: you and the other person. Now I know that everyone isn’t going to jump up and run for office, but my point is that the people who care about the things you do and are frustrated with the government like you are- these are the people who could be running for office. Common People with Common Sense. Or maybe you could decide to hold a meeting somewhere in your town, asking people to drop by for a few hours of civil conversation. After many of these meetings, someone will likely emerge as a potential candidate for something and before you know it, you’re on the road to change. I admit that this will take some courage from the person doing the organizing. You could easily post an advertisement on the internet or on a community bulletin or in an inexpensive newspaper, in case you didn’t want to invite people you were close too. (I know that our egos prevent us from “acting out of the norm” and this surely would be that, so inviting unknown people may make things flow more freely for everyone.) If only one in every 10 or 20 people who read this would try something like this out, I bet you’d be surprised at how things can move along.

How can you support that person and make it possible for them to run for election? How can you help their election succeed? Once you’ve begun meeting with your fellow citizens and talking about the things that are important to you all, common sense principles of government and society, you’ll find someone to stand up for your collective desires and run for a political office. Whether this is a local, state, or national office is not really relevant here, with the exception that for each higher level of government, a higher level of effort will be required. You must now come together to support your candidate. The high cost of running a campaign is a major deterrent to most candidates. It would be naïve to ignore that fact. However, if we learned nothing from the last election cycle, we learned that new technology and creative ideas are just as, if not more effective, than the major parties reliance on TV and radio advertising. The open nature of the internet provides a fertile ground for spreading ideas and promoting candidates. The personal computer makes the printing of campaign material both readily available and inexpensive when delegated among many people. Rely on the power of your visibility for the media to notice you and make yourself know to them by writing press releases and getting on radio talk shows to talk about your common sense candidate. Write letters to people in the community. I’m not sure what all of the campaign finance laws are, and you’d probably have to know what kind of restrictions there are, but if all of these tasks are parceled out amongst your group, as your group grows larger, the costs can be spread out more and more. The financial costs can thus be borne, but an even bigger cost is that of time.

In order for change to occur, you must be willing to give up some of your time. This is perhaps even harder for us to part with than our money. Our time is precious as our society leaves us with so little in which to truly enjoy. But if you ever want to change that very fact, you must find a way to offer up even more of your time today. The trick here is all in your perception. If you enjoy spending time with people who are fun and friendly and like to be active in change, you may not find it so hard to attend rallies and participate in sign making events. If you are more solitary, you might enjoy printing leaflets and bumper stickers at home with your computer, dropping them off for disbursal and sending out e-mails. With enough people getting involved, this could be as little as an hour or two a month or as much as several times a week. Not a lot of time when you think about it and the eventual pay-off would make it worth the while.

Whether or not you agree with all of my positions, if you at least agree that this government is not doing the right thing for the people, if you feel that things coming out of our capitols are not grounded in common sense, if you are tired of being bamboozled by your elected officials, and if you feel as if your voice is lost amid the corporate largess and special interests, then only by joining in the steps I’ve outlined above can you hope to make a difference. I know that everyone can and should re-register to vote as a non-affiliated voter and should encourage others to do the same. I hope that others will go further and begin to meet and promote good people. I hope you all will begin to involve yourselves in our future and not just complain as you ride along.

As corny as that sounds, I believe it could happen. But in today’s social and political climate, it seems more and more that we are heading in the opposite direction, creating a world that increasingly concerns itself with instant results and gratification, a world that values personal wealth rather than common good, a world that exploits the natural wealth of the planet without regard for future generations needs. As I look around today, I see people becoming more isolated within themselves and losing touch with the things that bind societies together. We are losing the ability to gather around common principles and stand together for what is right.

The progression of government through history has moved from tribal elder rule to regional warlord domination to national monarchies. Each of these systems had their pros and cons, but the thing they all had in common was subversion of individual rights to benefit either the group or the king. After thousands of years of tyranny and monarchal rule, some groups of people found the will to oppose those types of government and were successful in establishing a new form of society, what we call democracy. Now it helped that they had a brand new (to them at least) chunk of land far away from everyone else. And they had but to look at history’s last great social experiments in Rome and Greece to find a blueprint for success. But it was really their sense of establishing individual rights that culminated in their success, a success that we still enjoy today. But even though the ancient systems allowed for little in the way of personal fulfillment, they contained elements of the concept of shared duty and stewardship between the common people. In the quest for their own individual fulfillment, the founders of our democracy seem to have undervalued the need for societal fulfillment as well, and in doing so, left open the way for destruction.

Democracy, in its infant form, fostered an assumption that liberty from government was equal to the notion of doing for oneself first and foremost and not worrying about what they other guy thought. Freedom, to our founders, lay not only in the choice of religion and speech, but also in the ability to be left alone. The Constitution that they had created relied not so much on the participation of all citizens as it did on the acceptance of all citizens. Once accepted, the rights conferred by it would apply to all regardless of their future participation in the shaping of their society. Therefore, one could pretty much do as he pleased with his life, provided he did not infringe upon the rights of others and he obeyed the law. This premise, that freedom was guaranteed whether you worked for it or not, is what has led us to the place we find ourselves today.

Now it took quite a while for this attitude to morph into its present form. For much of our history, citizens involved themselves in community events and needs and turned out for state and national elections (those who were eligible at any rate). But despite these minor attempts at collective action, most people were taught that being an American meant that you could be anything, do anything, and go anywhere you pleased. If someone didn’t like it, well too bad for them. This attitude has been passed down through the years, and with each succeeding generation the concept of common good has become less and less valuable. We now find ourselves in such a state that we have become so focused on our own individual happiness, our own instant successes, that we forget that our actions really do impact other things in the world. In our search for “personal growth” we surround ourselves with people who share our interests and who already agree with our opinions. In doing so, we lose sight of the fact that everyone else is also doing this, but their success and happiness may be in direct conflict with our own. Unfortunately, we don’t take the time to find common ground and move forward in ways that benefit us all. Instead, we end up segregating ourselves into small, like-minded groups and demonizing those who fall outside our own little cliques. Rather than working for some kind of common benefit, we seek only to destroy each other.

It is this kind of atmosphere that can allow tyranny to return to the realm of government. By marginalizing ourselves into competing factions, we unconsciously advocate the need for a uniting force, but it comes to us not in the guise of the Shining White Knight but instead in the costumes of little dictators. So-called leaders try to collect as many separate groups together, often by just professing to despise the same people. In this way, they gather these groups together and claim to stand for them all. Longing for some kind of leadership, we eagerly accept their claims, if only to drive our competitors down. Unfortunately, in many cases, these so-called leaders are not who they pretend to be. Many are beholden to the tyrants of today, the large corporate entities that have somehow become kings unto themselves. These “leaders” care little for commonality; their lust is power and control. They live and breathe the concept that freedom means telling people that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, at no cost to them. They revel in their offices as they watch the self-segregated masses lap it up. They create confusing legislation to further muddle the concept of democracy, ensuring that more little groups will arise that they can make promises to and control.

So how does all of this fit in with the concept of Rapid Reform? In reality, many of the ideas that I will propose will take generations to accomplish. I understand that in order for all of our problems to get fixed, we must first start by fixing the concept of freedom and to do that, we have to change the way people engage with each other. This kind of change requires concentrated educational efforts that can only take root with time. But in the interim, it is essential that people acknowledge that our society is not headed in the right direction, not for those on the left or on the right. And especially not for those in the middle. It is essential to begin the processes that will allow for the kind of education that is needed to change the behaviors of humankind. And in order to change the processes, we need to change the people who are guiding those processes along. This is the Rapid Reform that I am talking about. Sweeping social changes usually happen in one of two ways: by natural design or by social calamity. We have recently seen the horror of natural design mandating social changes. The Asian tsunami has shown us how quickly our possessions and our lives could be taken away. And we have seen also the results of social change caused by social calamity, most recently in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither of these is a first choice for change. But perhaps there is another way, a way that has been used successfully before by the founders of our democracy here in America. Much as they collectively joined hands and told their monarchal rulers where to go, so too can we the people do the same with our government today.

Therefore, if you believe that Common Sense has been abandoned by our leaders…if you believe that together we are stronger than when we are at each others throats…if you believe that the time has come to move democracy to the next level, a level where individual and societal needs are in balance, a level where public policy is created with the future in mind, a level where the people are served by the government rather than the reverse, then you are ready for Rapid Reform. We must start by replacing the existing government with one that is more responsive to the people and more representative of their goals, not the goals of their corporate sponsors or their varied special interest donors. Rapid Reform means taking a stand today to find candidates who are willing to do what is right and throwing out those who are too entrenched in the current morass to realize they are as obsolete as the warlords of yesterday. It is time for Democracy to grow up.