Imri Rivas

San Francisco, CA, United States

About Imri

Bio

All I can say is my story isn't over yet. I had problems for being gay at home, so I decided to soul search in San Francisco, in the haven of tolerance for all. But at the same time, I have developed great political ideas, and I hope to enter in UC Berkeley one day to refine them. Maybe, just maybe, I can have my ideas spread like wildfire and create a society truly based by individual effort, all working together with society as a whole. As I think in my room for homeless youth, I still firmly believe that I am meant for changing the world. I am merely waiting for the time of my calling.

Languages

English, Spanish

Areas of Expertise

Political Theory, Politics and Administartion

An idea worth spreading

I am very passionate about participatory economics and democracy. I believe there is more wisdom in 100 people than in 1. The current system we have is hierarchichal and as a result, stumps our human potential in equality. Direct democracy can change the world if done right. It eliminates bereaucracy, eliminates corruption, and increases citizen input. So why aren't we doing it?!

I'm passionate about

Politics and world affairs! But I am also interested in secular Buddhism, I've helped myself and planning to help others to do it, bringing about change by changing the heart.

Talk to me about

Politics! I consider myself a lefty, but as long as there is logic, civility, and sincerity, I can talk to everyone from all walks of political ideology.

People don't know I'm good at

Reading their minds... OK, but on the serious side, I am good at dealing with people psychologically, and I can read behind the intention (my major is political science after all - its a gift really).

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Imri Rivas
Posted over 2 years ago
How much of a right do students have to questioning and independent thinking?
I think they have the right to question everything from the color of the sky to the foundation of our country. Education is meant to do just that; maximize every individual to his or her potential as an independent thinker. I think teachers really try to do their job. But laws like NCLB really curb that, and the teachers really don't have a choice. Their input on changing how the educational system works is really limited, if not eliminated entirely. With their pay penalized if the students aren't "advancing", teachers are sort of forcing students to be good test-takers rather than critical thinkers, despite that huge potential we each have. The reason behind that (warning, I am completely biased on my position, and very opinioniated, but here it comes), is private money. It seems to be the conservative dream to privitize schools for "efficiency", but, to me, its more like a sort of relish for making money of our public schools. Education should be free of money, and taking on the business model has already corrupted our schools enough, taking the educators out of the equation, and allowing for the wealthiest individuals and businesses to decide what or how to teach the students for them.
Noface
Imri Rivas
Posted over 2 years ago
Universal monthly allowance for all, financed by a 5% sales tax.
I wouldn't mind. But how about people receive this income if they are employed? Or something of an incentive to get people employed and make sure they don't use this primarily for income instead of getting a job? How much would this income be for all? It sounds real good, but can be a double edged sword. Maybe put an age limit as well? I think this can help because the middle class is what keeps the economy going in the first place. If the working class has money, demand keeps going.
Noface
Imri Rivas
Posted over 2 years ago
What is your argument for or against "Voter Apathy"?
I believe that voter apathy is the result of marginalization. It is the result of a people believing their voice doesn't matter. And who's to blame them? If you think about it, the voice of the average person really doesn't matter. I have always believed that a representational republic doesn't really work... especially for a country the size of the US. Can a small fistful of people really believe that they are representing millions in Congress or the Senate? Ordinary people can't influence a system we have by merely voting. Money does. The most effective government should be one that includes all citizens. There is more wisdom in ten individuals than one. There is more strength in collaboration than individualism. If people are given a chance in influencing government policy directly, their apathy would no longer be rationalized. They would see that in the process of debating and creating policy, everyone should be heard and included in the democratic process. Therefore, voter apathy can be eliminated if we create a system of government that is participatory, collaborative and inclusive. People think they're votes don't matter right now, and with good reason. Take that reason away, and I guarantee that there could be massive change in the way we do our politics and voting.
Noface
Imri Rivas
Posted over 2 years ago
In the aftermath of war, genocide, or exploitation - Forgiveness helps more than justice.
I say forgiveness. I probably sound to idealistic, but here it goes! To want the need for revenge is natural, because we all desire justice. However, I think that the line between justice and retribution is really blurry. But the distance I draw is that in justice, you are not in the state of mind that your oppresor was in when he/she caused pain to the victims. When you want retribution or revenge, you really are not any different from the passions of your oppresor. Just because you forgive someone, though, does not mean you are apt to erase the consequences of their actions; after all, there are consequences for everything you do. Retribution and revenge solve nothing, and if you give in to it, all you do is go around in a never-ending circle of pain, regret, guilt, and anger. The only way to break that is to forgive. It provides closure for both sides, and provides a new fresh start for both sides as well. For me, there should consequences if someone killed others, but it should not vengeful. Justice must be done as peaceful as it should be, and try to restore the individual to his full humanity. If he/she does not wish so, then this individual would be too much of a threat to others, and it would be our responsibility to keep this individual away from society. In short, the judicial system should be built to demonstrate our humanity, and the loss of the individual own self. Not the other way around.
Noface
Imri Rivas
Posted over 2 years ago
Jason McCue: Terrorism is a failed brand
Terrorism is just an excuse to keep the profits of war going of the military industrial complex. Since WWII, we've always enemies that can all of a sudden be our neighbors, our family, even ourselves it seems. It was like the branding of "communists". All of a sudden, commies were everywhere, threatening our very way of life. It was an excuse to encarcerate all members of society who refused to stay quiet. It was pretty effective; call activists "commies" (which can mean anything in the US, it seems) and then do what ever you want with them. Same in modern times. With the NDAA and Patriot Act, if you pose a threat to corporate interests, all what needs to happen is for you to be labeled as a "terrorist" (which are everywhere! gasp!) and then you are incarcerated... Indefinitely. Terrorism is so old. You can't beat it through force. Terrorism is in the heart. If you can change the heart, you can win. But the US would rather change the population numbers by blowing stuff up, and make more terrorists in the process. If we are to win against terrorists, we need to leave THEM alone, not vice versa, and be an example of democracy and equality. Because we aren't. And the world sees through that.
Noface
Imri Rivas
Posted over 2 years ago
Is Nationalism a 21st Century Ethic - Isn't Nationalism more like Racism or Sexism than Patriotism?
Yea I happen to agree... I also think nationalism is much so an illusion. It doesn't really exist. What exists are the differences in culture, and maybe race, but race is also a made thing in our heads to structure the world (so often at the expense of others); nationalism is something else entirely. Like saying that I'm "American". "American" is basically everything in the world; French, English, Irish, Native American, African, Mexican, etc. etc. Nothing really makes "American", unless you say so in your head. No nation or culture is superior to another too. And to finish this off, words of Buddhism come to mind: "The world is my home." Nationalism. Ugh