Green Party Discussion About Commons

The issue, as I see it, is that we don't have any real rights. Yeah, OK, we have some rights under the Constitution. But those rights have been subjugated by Supreme Court case law to the "rights to commerce". (notably that these cases were voted upon by people who were appointed by electoral authority provided by illegal elections)

This is not just once, but thousands of times. That is considered "settled case law", because no one has challenged these rulings. So it becomes "legal" that profit subjugated people/environment.

Anyway, this is not the first time this has happened.

Recently, a Texas judge ruled that "Clean Air is a Right", or something like that. In her ruling, she referenced Roman law relative to "the commons".

The concept of The Commons is to establish what is "public property"...that which we all share in and that which can not be co-opted.

Terra: Some people in Occupy Boston started working on [See OB Commons work] our definition for "The Commmons"]]. Then found this work done by the[Permaculture] folks. I, for one, thought this work by Permaculture was so good, that I stopped concentrating on doing the definition. But if I got back into it again, if my memory serves, I'd want to include currency and other financial systems/assets and various other "obscure" things like the right to create derivatives, and other entrapments. Anyway, I don't want to keep doing this research in a vacuum. The people in Boston that I was working with on this went away. I can probably organize a new Commons group, to include some people from the public banking group and the environment and human rights groups. But maybe after the election. In the meantime, just referencing the word "commons" may be enough. From what I understand...the term refers to "all that we hold dear", where the definition is in flux. Like now that the judge ruled that clean air is "commons", it holds...til someone successful challenges it.