Forum Post: [DELETED]
Posted 10 years ago on Aug. 22, 2013, 11:49 a.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[DELETED]
Public Forum
2 comments 4 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Well of course ownership is based on the self.
Of course this club is mine, I made it. My effort went into creating it. I created it for my purposes.
Of course this food is mine. My effort went into obtaining it. I need it to live.
Of course this land is mine. This is where I dwell. My effort goes into farming it to sustain myself. All my stuff is here.
Human life is based on self. We're not selfless, mindless, ants or bees. People will always need personal possessions and personal space. This is true of people in Bejing and in the Arctic. It's true of people in New York and in the Kalahari. And people will always need each other. People who need each other will always have commonly shared things needed for the group. Private and public needs go hand in hand and one will never exist to the exclusion of the other. Any attempts to force it all one way only results in imbalance and chaos.
This thread ought to have the methods of economic solution and the human motivational structure outlined for that kind of book.
I'm not an economist but I thought this was rather interesting:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/07/what-would-you-have-the-president-do-part-i-necessary-first-moves.html
Amazing how many different views are found inside the box. I do understand the endofmine concept. Consider, the Lakota Souix had no word for me or I.
Psychologically it can only be better for the species capacity to adapt and survive to evolve, if they consider themselves as a species, a group.
Well, I do admit my link had a lot of economic solution but nothing about human motivations. I'd heard that the Lakota Sioux had no word for 'I' or 'me.' I find that fascinating. I'll still have to look at the OP's link. I haven't done that yet.
Hmm. perhaps a different box I refer to, but it does lead back to instinct, and that is emotion.
I was talking about the possibility that the US constitution is a tool for the species adaptation and survival, enabling evolution. This guy had posted here for awhile on Article V last year, then moved to the articlev.org site with the notion of something we could call the "Principal Party". Basically, it gets rid of parties and makes principals important.
http://articlev.org/oxwall/forum/topic/principle-over-parties-a-new-political-paradigm-exclusive-to-human-beings
I was thrilled to find it all splines into legal process and democracy! It even makes a place for direct democracy in formation of opinion needed in evaluating amendments. Talk about victory over corporations, OMG.
I'll have a look at that link. There have been a couple people on this site that have pushed the concept of principles, not parties; LeoYo and DKA come immediately to mind. I definitely agree with that concept.
[Removed]
Cognitively correct, spiritually empty. I'll check the site.
We may become extinct then. I don't see society in general as willing to change at this point in time. It's going to take a total collapse and even then the majority may not abandon a life based on "self". Worse still in the post collapse the survivors may turn out to be those who base actions on self and not the altruistic.
Extinction is DEFINITELY unconstitutional.
The school of crisis management approves of your perspective.
Curiously we can be fairly sure that if each person was given an opportunity to review the facts leading to extinction and make a decision as a member of the group, we would find the majority will to change, but only if everyone else is doing it.
Why ows cannot get this and apply it to the democratic potentials of Article V, no one can figure.
http://interoccupy.net/occupystrategy/2013/08/occupy-strategy-group-calls-for-vote-on-proposal-to-support-move-to-amend/
Move to amend would be a good start at rebuilding our democracy. I believe however that the post does identify the main obstacle as society itself. There are too many individuals at all economic levels of society that are self centered and greedy.
Movetoamend depends on congress to amend rather than understanding and sharing the potential for Artcle V.
It's good they are getting support for getting campaign finance reform, but it is not realistic to expect congress to limit their own access to campaign funds from corporations. The way I see it, the supremes were put up to it so congress would not have to create unlimited funding schemes for themselves which would look very bad.
You've mentioned exactly why people will not change, "we would find the majority will to change, but only if everyone else is doing it". No one wants to be the first. You can't get a majority to actually form if everyone stands back waiting for it and refusing to be first.
I'm not sure what you mean about extinction being unconstitutional. Extinction is simply a natural process, the constitution has no more authority over it then it would have over any of our other traits. If we are unwilling or somehow unable to change then we fail as a species. You can't legislate the real problem away.
You mention employing Article V, you need a large group organized and willing to support that, such a group doesn't exist. You may see it as a solution, but it's likely to go no where without a majority that agrees with you. You're back to your original observation, again to quote you, "no one wants to join you until everyone else is doing it".
Your points are valid but there is a slant that needs correcting.. Consider this. The constitution is legislation that seeks to effect behaviors that can cause extinction. We are approaching a majority, albeit silent currently, that knows our behaviors are causing serious compromise to vital elements. Behaviors have also destroyed the economy. It's all unconstitutional IF the constitutional intent is to protect life, and that is an action against extinction.
Ultimately your point about the majority needed is the underline for our need of free speech.
I see posters here that are unaccountable in numerous ways to their efforts to prevent a majority from forming which appreciates Article V. They use cognitive distortions amongst them to attempt to make day into night.
You're interpreting what the Constitution was intended to do to fit your ideas and you're not likely to get many to agree with that analysis. Many see it as a document designed to outline and limit the power of government not control or modify our attitudes. In fact it goes to lengths to permit diverse and unpopular opinions to be held and expressed.
An article V convention could correct that, but again it's unlikely to happen when there isn't any noticeable popular support for such a move.
Perspective shift causes that description. Attitudes control perceptions.
Simply viewing it as an expression of natural law, philosophy or even biology, or trying to, gives a clue as to its potential sociologically.
If it had such meaning as one working to assure our survival and evolution, and using it was in our long term interest, would you support that?
I don't see the current constitution, or even the banks and big corporations as the worst problem we face. I see the biggest problem we face as an general apathy on the part of the public. Get them engaged and the other problems become manageable.
I'm not sure what you're talking about so it's impossible to say if I'd support your idea or not. Currently there is little to no support for an Article V convention. Before I could support one I'd have to know specifically what it was intended to do and believe that all other approaches to the problem had failed.
Apathy is huge. It is often caused by confusion. Media manipulation does that.
The 1% has sent massive infiltration to cognitively foul Americans appreciation for Article V, which is our first constitutional right. However, all the changes the 99% need are really only possible with the authority of Article V. Cognitive infiltration is so bad they even have Wikipedia doing it. Wiki does it with 9-11 too. Censorship here prevents unity on anything put socialist agenda.
Public apathy exists, it is an unfortunate fact. Unless that apathy can be overcome there will be no solution to any of our problems. It doesn't matter what anyone offers as a solution, without waking up the public and gaining majority support nothing has a chance of working.
There are 2 basic kinds of apathy.
1)I don't care. 2)I care. but am confused about what is happening and don't know what to do, so I'd rather not care.
The newest strategic concept in politics uses Article V and executes a political paradigm shift. It assumes 2) is the case and creates a point of unity which is prime constitutional intent that only human beings can participate in. They call it preparatory amendment and the idea I've heard elsewhere is a new party called the "principal party" is going to implement it in order to see Article V is properly done.
http://articlev.org/oxwall/forum/topic/principle-over-parties-a-new-political-paradigm-exclusive-to-human-beings?page=1
Fear of unconstitutional amendment is one reason people don't consider Article V to deal with needed changes.
You're starting with a faulty assumption. There are many other reasons beyond the 2 you mention. You assume it's your second form of apathy but that may not be the case for the majority of people. Even if it is, that doesn't mean they will agree with your solution.
The argument offered by Brown in your link is a house of cards based on a faulty assumption and wishful thinking. While few are likely to say "no" to the idea of free speech, it doesn't follow that a majority would be willing to open up the constitution for a complete overhaul through amendments.
House of cards? Seems free speech and democratic integrity with fair campaign practices make more than that. If that were true, America would have fallen long ago. In 1911 the requisites for Article V were met, but congress violated law, oath, and constitution. Since then house has been falling.
What sold me on preparatory amendment was Browns merge of instinct into constitutional intent. At his site, algoxy.com, there is a page about strategy. He's got away of addressing ANY critic (I saw GF fail here) because to oppose the concepts is against human instinct! I'll try and find that for you.
The notion might rile your senses of politics, but it's correct and filled with constitutional intent.
I'm not referring to the concept of freedom of speech, but rather to Brown's assumption that the majority will rally around the idea of an article V convention by invoking the ideal of such a convention protecting or supporting free speech. It does not logically follow that anyone would be in favor of a constitutional convention because they are in favor of freedom of speech.
I haven't seen all Brown's arguments, but there is a big difference between addressing a critic and actually winning them over so that they will vote to support your point of view.
The limit is constitutional intent. If Americans do not know what it is, they will loose goverent that respects it no matter what. Americans might as reach for the tool for defining, sharing and unifying before things get any worse.
Browns first strategic concept in preparatory amendment returns the ultimate tool for unity.to America, free speech. I came here looking for solutions, but didn't find them until I read closely what schools here were working on rejecting.
Blew myind , does not compute , exactly the authority needed to address the many demands ows has.
The method of engagement is exactly Browns point. From reading, I think he knows it is a catch 22 unless enough actually seek to unconditionally preserve the constitution. When I understood that, I understood my own responsibility to share the fact.
We have the public interest working to awaken the public, and the media trying to keep it sleeping. A very real wake up is the economy. What Brown has done, which I very much respect, is to actually define the prime constitutional intent behind the preservation of our lives.
He finds it in some old doctrine, he says, called the greater meaning of free speech. I've got to admit that it all fits together and makes real sense of some of the lawmaking that went into creating some US code for example. Apparently this doctrine is a missing 70%, before, or above and beyond, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
BTW, I found that post where that missing 70% is used by a poster here to expose GF's unaccountable posting by comparing it to a couple other womens similar positions. Rather disturbing in some ways.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/women-are-better-leaders-than-men/#comment-912376
Disturbing, BUT, it did stop the BS. It exposed the illogic of their basic positions and inability to reasonably justify themselves. What is disturbing is they chose to not support and only ceased with their illogic.
I understand why many do not support the use of article V. Once a convention is opened there is no limit that can be placed on its agenda. The representatives may offer a few amendments or literally re-write the constitution.
Browns point is that free speech is needed for Article V. "Browns assimption that the majority will rally around the idea of an article V convention by invoking the ideal of such a convention protecting or supporting free speech."
He correctly equates Lincoln's words defining the people as masters of the congress and the courts with the obvious power that comes from unity. Logically that can only come from free speech and near universal principals. Of course these things are not taught, they are the product of independent critical thinking.
You leave out the same critical element that is the point of my very first comment. While everything you say is true, it's all useless without an engaged public. It's seems that nothing has been able to awaken and unify the public.