Thread: I have no idea what this says

My head kind of hurts and it's soooo late. Can anyone figure out just wth this says???

Nightowl help1! You get energy at night right?

-----

In brief, the moral democracy...
rationally could form to be our kind's first "real democracy" to include a redundant "morality" if knowingly we'd not continue to ignore our one humanly-common source and would apply its logic to that purpose. We then could apply our language in order truly to produce that rule "of, by and for all the people" the moral basis of which we rationally in common could describe to be a "democracy." That is we socially must institute the political prescriptions and proscriptions which form first and commonly to be "moral" given that only one unified logic even reconciles our common social formation morally with that possible description.
That logic applies socially to include the public and private and autonomous public sectors (APS) such that all the people inclusively within a social contract morally even could have a secondary political authority. That is, all enfranchised citizens socially bear ultimate custodial responsibility individually for the custodians with that secondary authority if morally all rationally would form a democracy or not. Their ultimate custodiality follows from their own political acts, if institutionally only to vote for their instituted custodians or sit as jurors within the trials a trial court conducts within a moral judicial system.
Morally, those purposefully within the public sector always would institute politically with custodial responsibility, first secondarily to contract socially from the people's political authority. They'd serve corporately within legally-instituted interest groups ultimately representing everyone within the social contract as a whole. The directly elected among them also would serve all the enfranchised who did or didn't exercise their primary right socially to participate with custodial responsibility themselves. Further, it's the officials from within the election's section of the executive branch's legal services division who'd count the votes of those who did while the candidates would fill the available positions or provide a line of succession to a given office in descending order of the vote count.
All enfranchised citizens similarly could determine how long their elected individuals bear custodial authority geopolitically within the common borders of their nation-state either through initiatives for recall or as logical plaintiffs within their judicial system. Equally with that primary participation right, custodians also may quit at any time. Because all rights equally apply within those borders, other even disinterestedly-arbitrary geopolitical divisions also couldn't exist. All elections would be "at large" to lack both "term limits" and the compartmented jurisdictions which standardize an immoral "federalism." There'd also be no such indirect electoral means as served by the U.S. "electoral college" or the legislative-branch dictation of executive-branch leaders through so-called "parliamentary democracies."
No such past geopolitical divisions even arbitrarily have been disinterested at their humanly conceived inception. For added instance, we've also formed legislative districts and bicameral legislatures. These immorally also form from the enacted rule of the political men who unethically institute such concepts from top down rather than the moral law which all enfranchised citizens commonly first could implement. This results in a redundant system of governance which some humans unethically impose also rationally to waste our resources, one at best which lets us escape unjust individual judgments through bureaucratic inefficiencies, "buck-passing" and selective law enforcement even while we slip through the "cracks" in our "social safety nets" for better and, ultimately, worse.
We must enact morally-disinterested standards if rationally we're all to have equal access to those expertized custodial positions which also are among our positive life options. This requires our elected or expertised personnel managers to publicize all public and private-sector job openings or APS positions through the media because all enfranchised citizens equally have a first right to access them. It also requires these secondary custodians, also as appropriate to the moral interest group concerned, to hire on a first-come, first-served or lottery basis and employ the first qualified applicant. It similarly requires them to open an existing position only if the current holder either fails to perform his or her contracted duties, loses enfranchised status, or quits.
While public-sector standards require the unelected to certify as experts and directly to participate within moral interest groups, those for the private sector leave both optional. Yet corporate combinations within the latter themselves must form to be moral democracies inclusively within the moral democracy. Their political individuals would be its equal co-owners- jointly casting equal votes to determine their own employment standards and economic purposes such that they first yield to the primary rights of all individuals within what we call "management decisions." All this and more morally applies because they equally have a political-economic purpose secondarily to serve the primary interest of citizens-consumers whose rights the public sector more inclusively would represent.
The private sector's standardized "sole proprietorship" at the individual's option also is political and secondarily custodial because she or he also so serves. This also applies if and while she or he secondarily contracts with other sole-proprietors or corporations in order to gain new wealth. It's finally then that these as well as other ethical individuals within both political sectors morally could co-exist and coordinate in the ultimate interest of all individuals inclusively within what could be our kind's first morally-exemplary nation-state.
The autonomous public sector (APS) also morally then could form to include those enfranchised citizens who'd opt by primary right secondarily not to institute with political authority. Certified expertise morally not a precondition, she or he optionally also could combine with APS others if none would transact with citizens-consumers for economic gain. That they could create new wealth for all because we'd liberate them from having to pursue a "profit motive" as a precondition to their pursuing possible life options would be a bonus- not a contradiction. Given their productive discoveries, inventions and art works, their contributions could parallel the instituted public sector's in its social reach but without the latter's necessary limitations.
Therefore they could behave as all other privately-primary individuals could with their fully-optionable rights secondarily assured politically. Like political parties or churches, say, they morally even could institute the top-down rule of men if they'd choose also to combine within their own interest groups. That is, they and all of us could if we all first would implement a moral democracy- first would serve the hierarchically-applied rule of moral law within our own moral interest groups rather than the rule of those men who secondarily wouldn't be our custodians because we as primary would let them. Until we do, only such exhortations as this and/or our moral civil disobedience provide our only moral alternatives.
-----