Are entitled to, and responsible for decently maintained housing and by subsidy if necessary. Are entitled to energy independence from fossil fuels. At the age of twenty-five must begin to establish savings at the rate of 2½% of ongoing taxable income. Are required, after the 14 year learning sequence, to enter community or armed service for one year at minimal compensation. Those who wish to extend the learning sequence may enter community service part-time on or off campus. Are entitled, aside from clear and present danger, to a referendum to go to war. Are entitled to massive infrastructure projects to reflect the needs of a new century. Are entitled to convenient election polls and five days in which to cast ballot. Are entitled to all election campaigns not to exceed three months. Are entitled to instructional — no negative — political ads posted or aired by the media at no cost to qualified candidates.

What we are "entitled" to is spelled out in a document called the constitutions. The United States is founded on the principles of self-reliance. Freedom to succeed or fail is what America is all about. Several of your "axioms" basically would restrict freedoms. Others put the government in the role of all knowing mommy. Singling out fossil fuels, for instance, is silly. In reality, people wouldn't care at all about fossil fuels if they didn't pollute. But all forms of energy have their pros and cons.

We aren't "Entitled" to elections being handled in any way other than spelled out in the contistution. Similarly, we are a representative democracy. We elect (hire) people to do the day to day work of running the country. Issues of war and peace should never be held determined by a referendum. (I'm against referendums in general).

Figures a Kennedy would write this.

 

Are entitled to equal footing in the pursuit of their goals.

I wonder how this would be applied in the real world. How would we ensure that children from families that live in the ghetto have the same footing as one from one of those sleazy clothing designers?

Are entitled to energy independence from fossil fuels.

Walking, biking, etc.

Why is it silly if as Bush claims, we are heading toward hydrogen fuel, though admittedly decades away? And is there no degrees of pollution? In being against referenda, does that also include frivolous recalls? The constitution protects the common good and it is not good for those to fail to contribute to the nation. As a Kennedy, I'm with JFK's "Ask not...", yet understood is that the nation is sufficiently enlightened to act in behalf of its citizens as a given[ or axiom].

Messy, yes, difficult indeed to acquire equal footing; though the ideal will never be achieved, we should at least try to make things better. Walking and biking sounds like a good start--beats SUVs.

That is quite a list. As to the 'living wage' it should be front and center with all Americans. The 'controlled media' constantly slander and libel the concept to keep us from disussing the same issue. I do find it would even be Constitutionally justified under scrutiny, and the minimum wage system abolished if it were brought up for review. As to a short simplified treasury report, go to this site: http://www.cafr1.com and it will blow you away the amount of money the various inc.'s are hiding from us. It is in the trillions and we are all rich in fact. We just need to get these facts before the people and see if they want the money or to continue with the same scam we are now in.

I agree how difficult really is a simple cost of living index compensation added to living wages? I'm with you on the great scam of US politics; it is a far cry from what theory in democracy expects.

By what right does the government decide what is the proper amount someone should make? I thought this was a free country.

It wouldn't bother me at all if the government were to force businesses to pay me handsomely for handing out flyers in front of the store, or working fast food, and even if that resulted in the layoff of millions, the government could always create new jobs for the unemployed.

By what right does the corporate world decide what is the proper amount someone should make? I thought this was a generous country concerned with the commonwealth.

Messy, it's no so much a question of the government forcing businesses to pay a decent wage as it is the recognition that business has an obligation to think in terms of human rights. Business is not created out of a vacuum; it needs workers, and also the government laws to protect commerce.

Maybe it's me, but I think that a corporation should have the right to decide what to pay its employees as opposed to having a government decide what the corporation should pay its employees. Of course, we could always have the government step in and demand that the wages of employees be raised to a "humane" amount, which would either result in higher prices, which would place those who rose above the poverty line by the government's actions right back under it, or mass unemployment, which would place those who rose above the poverty line by the government's actions right back under it. Of course, maybe the government should control the prices a corporation charges as well as who the corporation can layoff. It worked for the Soviet Union.
Despite the country not turning into a communist state though, it's still generous with all its social programs and all its protections of workers. If generosity means communism though, then I say no thank you.

Why is the corporation so sacrosanct? Is it as impersonal as the government? Does not the corporation bleed, does it not weep, does it not have the milk of human kindness?

By what right does the corporate world decide what is the proper amount someone should make? I thought this was a generous country concerned with the commonwealth.

They don't decide the proper amount. Corporations compete for labor just like the products of those corporations compete for buyers. The system tends to balance itself. It's not perfect but it's better than any government solution I've seen.

Why is the corporation so sacrosanct? Is it as impersonal as the government? Does not the corporation bleed, does it not weep, does it not have the milk of human kindness?

I run a business. I should have the right to decide how much I want to pay someone to do a job based on its value to me. If my offer is not competitive, the person can go elsewhere.

Have you ever had someone mow your grass or watch your kids or shovel your snow? How would you like to have the government dictate to you how much you have to pay for shovel snow. Would they have a guide based on the size of the drive way? Or the temperature outside? Or the age of the person doing the shoveling? Where does it end?

In the real world prices are decided by the individual choices of millions of people. A kid comes and wants to shovel our snow, I say "Okay, I'll pay you $5 to do it." They either agree or they counter offer me or they refuse and find someone else's snow to shovel.  And millions of people, doing that, sets the pricing and expectations on different jobs.

It's called the free market and it works pretty well.

Why is the corporation so sacrosanct? Is it as impersonal as the government? Does not the corporation bleed, does it not weep, does it not have the milk of human kindness?

Corporations aren't charity organizations, and I personally have no problem with that. Can you imagine how the computing world would be if all these greedy capitalistic corporations were non-profit organizations instead?