Frequently Asked Questions

Home | FAQ | Sponsoring Organizations | Press Room | Contact Us

Isn't the idea of the Government for the People too radical?

Government for the People is intended, and will be only a social movement. It will not be a political movement (such as communism or fascism), which planned to make radical changes to the political system, in favor of certain social or racial groups. The proposed changes -- constitutional and other legislative -- are relatively modest in scope. It is common sense that our institutions should serve their societies. For example, educational institutions are expected to teach and medical institutions should heal their intended beneficiaries. Similarly, the most important governing institution, which enables the other institutions to do their tasks, should serve the people, and not the special interests.

The Constitution was designed to be modified through amendments. The fact that so far twenty-seven amendments were passed indicates that it is feasible to continue the process, especially where the national interest is involved. Term limits for Congress and the public financing of elections -- needed to secure the abolition of the political class -- are already being considered.

Will it be possible to achieve the goals of such an ambitious social movement as the Government for the People?

Constructing a unified mass social movement will be a difficult, but feasible task, especially now that the Internet is available. We'll have to develop a clear message, locate the many individuals and organizations that are potential supporters, and reach out to the media. The new communication technologies will provide the means to achieve our goals.

The abolition of slavery was a far more difficult task, and yet it succeeded. William Lloyd Garrison started out in 1831 by publishing a four page newspaper -- The Liberator -- with a very small circulation. Communicating the message was done verbally and by slow mail. Still, the moral power of the social movement prevailed in making abolition inevitable. Had it not been for the Southern political class, the abolition of slavery could have been achieved peacefully, without the terrible bloodshed of the Civil War.

Is there any danger of radical changes to our society?

The common good state would only serve to coordinate the activities of the institutions of society, to optimize the benefits to the citizens as much as possible. It will not try to control the emergence of new technologies, scientific discoveries, starting of new businesses, etc. Obviously rules -- such as not destroying the environment -- will have to be followed. But creativity will not be restrained, a new political class will not be allowed to emerge, etc. The very idea of the "common good" is to reach mutually beneficial goals to potentially opposing factions -- conservatives vs. liberals, rich vs. poor, and so on. The main objective would be the advancing of human survival and progress.

* * * * *