The Sunrise Foundation

Correctional Philosophical Thought Processes
Home
Contact Info
About Us
FAQ
Philosophical Approach
Editorials that serve
Our Blog Zone
CSM Articles
CSM Articles cont..
CSM Articles cont...
CSM Articles cont..
Needed Reforms
Events
Volunteers
Archives
Links
Site/Blog Disclaimer

In addition to those issues we discuss elsewhere in our website there is a need to discuss an approach to problem solving that we feel has reached a dangerously low level of educational awareness among the people of the United States, as well as in the global community.
1.) First do no harm. The question of who or what harm will be caused by our actions must be asked, and incorporated into our problem solving process.
2.) The solution to any problem must consider and protect the rights of all who may be impacted by the problem solving process.
In the United States we have consistently operated throughout our history without these two processes presence ever having been able to be regularly visible.  We live in a society that because we refuse to incorporate these simple processes into how we  approach problems we continuously inflict continuous and repetitive horrors upon innocent groups of people. Our political and social processes have become all about winning, dominating, controlling.  We have (as a society) forgotten operationally the importance of, the operational needs for our CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Which holds as a recognized truth, something the majority of us demonstrate daily that we have forgotten, that the individual has Rights that cannot be taken away by the power of the majority, the MOB. A Democracy that operates in defiance of these principles will always degenerate into something unacceptable, typically being replaced by something that operates in a rather tyrannical fashion. The reason for this is, purely democratic processes, that operate without these principles being enshrined into the process are nothing more than the infliction of the will of the many over the few, Mob rule. In the United States from the very moment of our existence there has been a conflict between those wishing to have a nation that operates within the operational guidelines that recognize the Rights of the one over the whims of the many, or those that consider themselves to be the elite, or who for various other reasons have undermined these sacred processes. At this time our nation is clearly in the grip of those who have worked to eliminate these hard won lessons, and processes from our collective operational awareness's.
3.) It is appropriate to consider a balance of harms, a defence of necessity, for lack of a better term, if a solution to a problem may negatively impact the rights of an individual. However not wanting to be bothered with taking the time to find a solutions that would achieve the needed results while making the best effort to protect the rights of all, which results in actions being taken that upon examination are determined to have been imprudent, should be treated as a serious criminal offense. With the punishment for said crime being equal to the violation of said group or individuals rights. (As general guideline, we have found that those persons, processes, or organizations, government or otherwise, that have as a part of their process, a willingness to actively expose their actions or thought processes to valid processes of review, I.E. Such as through our "viable" courts or media processes ect, are less likely to cause harm or be criminal, while those who are unwilling to do same should be treated with extreme caution, for historically "their activities almost always are found to have unjust, or criminal aspects attached..)
4.) Activities that are participated in by consenting adults, that harm no one, except perhaps the participants, must be recognized as protected activities, that said adults have a right to participate in. Any laws passed that impact these activities must be designed in such a way as to only require that those participating in said activities be responsible for harms or excessive? cost factors that may be associated with said activity, while protecting those that do not wish to participate from those same costs, or potential harms. It should also be said that the use of processes of taxation voted into place by the majority, that impact a "targeted" minority, with a clear intent to engineer a particular social outcome that will "unjustly?" restrict  the ability of people to participate in a particular activity, is immoral. The only acceptable reason to implement such a specialized tax would be to fulfill the requirements mentioned above. To create funding sources in order to abate cost factors from impacting those that do not wish to participate in these activities, to create educational resources that may be needed by those who may not be fully aware of the potential harmful effect of a particular activity, and to ensure that those activities that could allow for a person to become addicted are reasonable regulated to disallow the potential for the activity to be unnaturally enhanced with addictive potential. (Even actions taken within the scope of these guidelines can over reach or unjustly impact the targeted groups.. Common sense, and trying to operate within the historical values of all things related to "Liberty/Justice must be sustained..The danger of creating slippery slopes is always there and must be guarded against..) I was recently asked about those religious groups that believe they should be allowed to treat the illness of their children by prayer alone. I do not consider this to be a protected religious right as practiced, what it is, is actually a serious civil rights violation of children under the age of consent. I think it is fine for this to be a protected right, as long as you are an adult, or have reached the age of consent.
5.) A persons right to privacy, a families right to determine how they shall choose to live, shall be given, must be given tremendous veto power over restrictive laws that may intrude too far into their lives, intrude in a fashion that would offend the sensibilities of people that possess spiritual, or historical awareness's that far too many of us have forgotten. Our society, those within it who have defective thought processes, have mis-used, the rational of making us safe, as a reason to intrude too far into the lives, Rights of the individual. We must not use the least intelligent of us, the most irresponsible of us, those of us lacking the most basic aspects of common sense, as the mechanism through which to pass overly restrictive laws that blanket us all. These types of laws and thought processes must be abandoned in favor of laws that hold the individual responsible for their actions, while also not allowing them to unreasonably endanger those who do not wish to be endangered.
Someone came up to me and said, "the most efficient form of government is a dictatorship". I told them that, "Our nations founders recognized from the beginning that the form of government that they were trying to establish would be one that would take constant vigilance, and the most effort." I told this person that, "this was a result of the founders recognizing the lessons of history, and trying to incorporate as many safeguards into the system as they could reasonably devise."
I failed to mention that dictatorships become very inefficient as more people begin to resist the negative impacts on their lives that such a society will always inflict.

Colin Stuart McCoy - Realistic Monetarism - The Sunrise Foundation

So that every person may be free and reach their fullest desired potential.