Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Can We Move On? Or Are We Like the Stalker Boyfriend Who Simply Won't Let Go

Posted 9 years ago on May 23, 2013, 8:44 a.m. EST by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Another Reform vs Rebuild Post

How long will people on the right and the left keep clinging to their parties? I heard someone the other day bragging about "having an impact"

Lets put it in perspective:

A guy really wants to be liked by a girl. Can keep away from her. Thinks the world is over without her. The girl seems to be ramping up her moves to get the point across to this poor shmuck that shes not interested.

The guy finally gets her to smile at something. Goes back to his friends and claims he "had an impact"....

The thing this guy doesnt realize is this: She doesnt date people like you. Period. Not going to do it.

That sums up the desperation and pathetic-ness of our current- what we view anyways- political realm. Desperation, not realizing theres "plenty of fish"...stuck and obsessed.

300 million people in this country, and we cannot figure out to get control of our political future. We wont put in the time, the research or the energy (if you are currently doing this, dont take offense, theres about 2% of the population that is the exception).

So here we are. Pandering to a machine that has been working like this, the same exact way, for around 150+ years. Plugging along, and tossing our a few goodies every now and then.

Do people realize how entirely AWESOME this country could be if people were willing to put in only a few hours a month? Really embracing self governance.

I know that people are strapped for time. But they arent strapped to that extent. They just arent.

Clean and free energy. Incredible education leading to an incredible economy. Clean foods with easy access. etc. etc etc.

Another World Is Possible.



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by LeoYo (5909) 9 years ago

Humans are the same throughout the world and throughout time. All the tyrannies that have existed now and then have always had the apathetic consent of the masses that only united under the direction of the next tyranny to overthrow the current one.

“In all revolutions, those who ardently pursue the fight to the death are in the minority and there are usually at least as many who are ardently anti-revolutionary, plus an actual majority that is apathetic and will go where they are led (in either direction), if necessary, but who best prefer to be left alone.”

-Isaac Asimov


"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them"

-Frederick Douglass


"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

-Declaration of Independence


"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power."

-George Washington


"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."

-George Bernard Shaw


The only solution I see to all of this is the creation of an alternative cooperative community that can absorb the greater masses as times become worse for them. By cooperative community, I mean a community composed of a credit union and mutual insurance company as this allows for the individuals of the masses to simply choose an alternative without having to alter their everyday way of life. Worker-owner cooperative businesses are also apart of it but only as an extention to be built upon the credit union/mutual insurance foundation. From there, a voting block can be established for supporting community friendly initiatives and community friendly candidates community approved through the signing of community presented affidavits.

This cooperative community would be like a crack in a dam of repression, allowing the masses to seep through until the crack widens and the dam finally bursts releasing the masses to a better life.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

Some foreign countries have their postal services provide credit union/mutual insurance-like financial services. I wonder if we could form a U.S. Postal Customer Federal Credit Union under our present law from the Great Depression era. All postal customers can join the federal credit union due to their affiliation with the postal service which is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps we can provide a minimal-shock smooth transition to a better cooperative future. Many of the existing post offices already have the service windows and personnel to handle money so it should be relatively easy to upgrade to provide low-end financial services through them. This can give 'going postal' a whole new and better meaning.

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5909) 9 years ago

I'm wondering if establishing the credit union/mutual insurance foundation just might be of interest to a network of existing cooperatives.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) may already be a forerunner of the credit union/mutual insurance foundation. However, the monetary aspects of the credit/mutual insurance unions are still cleared through the federal reserve system.

The federal reserve system perennially injects financial instabilities through its interventions, perceptions of its interventions, perceptions of the perceptions of its interventions, etc. The current NCUA system is still subject to the financial shenanigans of the manipulators.

Perhaps the new credit union/mutual insurance foundation should create its own currency that is not subject to the federal reserve system's instabilities. There may be a ready-made constituency for the postal customers' federal credit union. The workers and customers of the post offices slated for closing may be willing to turn their post offices partially into financial service entities under a broad umbrella instead and own shares in them cooperatively. The selling of postal money orders, for example, was a rather long-running tradition at the U.S. post offices.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 9 years ago

An independent currency or form of credit like time credits should certainly be made available for those who choose to utilize those alternatives but the standard currency would also be retained for those too uncomfortable with the alternatives.

With the establishment of a voting block, the establishment of state banks could be supported leading to a Union Reserve Bank and an eventual return to the previous currency of treasury notes.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

The establishment of a voting bloc may not be easy in our political system subject to much corruption. I am thinking more of a transitional or shadow 'shovel-ready' financial system. Can the U.S. postal service issue postal reserve notes that represent books of 'forever' series of postage stamps?

These postal reserve notes can be freely traded in our economy like our federal reserve notes. When presented for redemption at our postal offices, they can be exchanged for the equivalent postal transportation service (delivery of mail, packages, and tickets and tokens for transit and entertainment systems, etc.) at the prevailing exchange rate of the 'forever' series of stamps to our federal reserve notes.

Interested people can actually start immediately by using books of 'forever' series of stamps with 'Justice', 'Freedom', 'Liberty', and 'Equality' on them in lieu of our federal reserve notes with 'this note is legal tender for all debts, pubic and private'.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 9 years ago

I don't see what corruption in the political system has to do with making a voting block hard unless you're suggesting that elected officials in most of the 24 ballot initiative states commonly engage in the illegal tampering of initiative vote results.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

I was thinking of the lip service that the typical politician pays to its constituents while carrying out the nefarious missions of the big financial campaign contribution donors, often to the detriment of the constituents' interests. The formation of a voting bloc for these politicians does not help the matter of pushing through legislation for desirable change.

You are thinking of going on the route of ballot initiatives so I agree that it is definitely possible. I still believe in the integrity of our voting results.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

the numbers of money are mostly in private hands

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

I have just realized that the U.S. postal service has been issuing its own currency for a very long time -- namely, stamps and money orders. It does not need to start anew with a new currency.

The U.S.P.S. only has to make stamps and money orders convertible in limited quantities to federal reserve notes, make larger denominations available perhaps as books of stamps, allow the free circulation of them, and improve counterfeit protection. All of those people who are too poor to survive, join, or deal with the existing system of "created-out-of-thin-air" federal reserve notes and credit can circulate books of stamps and postal money orders.

The U.S.P.S. simply has to back up the books of stamps with its promise of labor to deliver postal service. It will not be "created out of thin air" because there will be labor behind it. Of course, to avoid the same problem with our federal reserve, the U.S.P.S. needs to exercise restraint.

The future of the U.S.P.S. can even include the digitally directed modular transportation system (modeled after the containerization of shipping) in its purview.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

It will not be a problem if we start anew with a new currency and forgo using the money still mostly in private hands except in trading with existing financial intermediaries.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

property ownership is in the other hand

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

In the beginning, there was no property. There were only labor and resources. No matter, timid one(s), starting from the beginning means just that -- return to the origin and create the world anew in our own image. It will be no more and no less probable than what our ancestors did.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Excellent post Leoyo

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 9 years ago

I enjoyed that, especially your use of the word "stuck". I've been finding that word very useful lately, to describe people crippled by MSM, unable to imagine and evolve.

I commented in this thread, what do you think? http://occupywallst.org/forum/can-we-move-on-or-are-we-like-the-stalker-boyfrien/#comment-974155

[-] 1 points by highlander21 (-46) 9 years ago

Have you ever heard of the saying "an idea before its time"? As much as I am a believer of individual freedom and liberty and suspicious of government, I believe that the future is going to lead to a world government of some sort; the problems the world face are simply too big. But the path to a global cooperative venture is what is open for debate.
We need to make every person an interested member in the game. However, I am afraid the world is not ready, for a number of reasons, to make that leap.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 9 years ago

"We need to make every person an interested member in the game. However..."

There is a solid way to gather near-total 99% unity, and not that hard of a concept to get. You have to take a bit of time putting it together in your head, but you'll eventually come to see the logic. The answer is USE THE SYSTEM AGAINST ITSELF.

The 99% can be divided into 3 groups: consumers, employees, and entrepreneurs. What binds us all? The market system. I believe unity can only be achieved by utilizing the market system in a new global movement.

It's called the 99% Conglomerate. You may have heard of it.

Anyone can start a Subsidiary, giving you one vote and full involvement in Conglomerate decision-making.

It doesn't matter how profitable your Subsidiary is, as profits are not shared between Subsidiaries. Your Subsidiary can be called YourNameWhatever, and you can sell advice, for example, and make no money ever, but you still get your vote.

Worker Self-Directed Enterprise (WSDE) management style is encouraged, but not enforced (until Phase 3 when special rules apply to a type of Subsidiary).

As Subsidiaries pop up here and there, the community supporting the movement is aware and supports them wherever possible. This is actually an organized boycott of non-Subsidiary businesses.

Consumers will come to realize where they should spend, and entrepreneurs will see how critical to their survival it is to be in the Conglomerate (if we let them in).

Employees will be lured into the Conglomerate for many reasons, especially that "democracy at work" feeling.


[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 9 years ago

There have been many good ideas that have failed to capture the public's interest. Some are not simplistic enough for immediate comprehension. Others just can't compete with the meaningless bits of entertainment the public choses to occupy itself with. People are more consumers than they are doers. The best way to get people involved in something is to offer them a better version of something they're already patronizing. That's why I advocate the establishment of a nationwide credit union and mutual insurance company. This allows people to be apart of a cooperative community without having to join a worker-owner business but at the same time become familiar with and patronize the worker-owner business community. The credit union and mutual insurance company can also seek to unite all other credit unions and mutual insurance companies into one big cooperative financial institution that can attract the general population away from the big banks and private insurance companies. Such a mutually owned financial institution could then help to finance the creation of worker-owner businesses.

An incentive for getting people involved could be a 1 year 1% reduced payment on the premiums of policy holders who are also credit union members and are responsible for having referred a new customer/member to the company. If a person refers 10 new members to the mutual insurance company, then that person will pay 10% less on their premium in the next year. If a person is responsible for refering 103 new members, then that person will get free coverage in the next year and pay 3% less in the year after. Of course, there is a limit as to how long such an incentive can work but that limit is met by the successful inclusion of society into a financial cooperative community capable of funding its own social welfare programs.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 9 years ago

I really like the sound of that! I'd make sure it's worker operated, no fancy board of directors or chair with 1% affiliations.

[-] 0 points by highlander21 (-46) 9 years ago

I am having trouble seeing it work beyond the small scale. What is to keep one subsidiary from gathering its votes to boycott another subsidiary, or sabotage them?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 9 years ago

Each Subsidiary gets one vote only. If someone owns two Subsidiaries, they still only get one vote. In Phase 3, there is a new type of Subsidiary (P3 Subsidiary), which have many employees, forced to be worker owned and operated. In the P3 subsidiary, the workers share the vote democratically (or each get a full vote, to be decided in P2 while updating its constitution).

The three phases are thought out already but just at a high level. Feel free to ask about them.

In P3, competing Subsidiaries will be encouraged to merge and become more powerful against the non-Subsidiary competition. P3 is a big one with big plans.

[-] 0 points by highlander21 (-46) 9 years ago

If someone owns 2 subsidiaries, then does a worker from one of those subsidiaries get only 1/2 a vote?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 9 years ago

In phase 1 and probably 2, workers can only try to influence the owner. Only Subsidiary owners get a vote. But remember, if a worker wants to have as much vote power as their employer, they simply take 2 minutes and start their own Subsidiary. They don't have to quit their job to do this. I hope everyone does.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 9 years ago

Nice post, OTP.

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 9 years ago

What you need to do is change the statement "300 million peole in this country and we cannot figure out to get control of our political future"


300 million people in this country, and they cannot figure out to get control of their own responsibilities.

The way I see it is if every one of the 300 million people in this country were more responsible for their decisions and actions, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Governments would be smaller, people would be independent and everyone would be on a path to wealth.

I guess I am expecting too much - but it's not the 300 million people whom are upset with the government - it's those who have not planned, don't want to be responsible for their own actions and want the government to give them a handout.

So that reduces the 300 million to about 70 million or so. The rest have decent jobs, make a decent wage, are successful and continue to strive for independence.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

" it's those who have not planned, don't want to be responsible for their own actions and want the government to give them a handout."

If thats who you think are the only ones who are pissed off then you need to get out more often.

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 9 years ago

Well I don't see 300 million people out protesting on the streets. I see people driving and shopping everyday.

I see massive traffic jams on the highways during rush hours - 6 AM - 9 AM 3 PM - 7 PM.

So like I said there are a lot of people out there who are working and making a decent living - If this country was so "poverty stricken" then why aren't there more protests?

Oh, I know, people have 3 jobs and can't protest.

But lets look at OWS stats when it comes to protesting - how many of the 300 million showed up on weekends when no one was working to protest?

I didn't see 300 million people out there did you?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

No I didnt. And ignorance is bliss. If you think what Bernake and friends are doing is a long term plan for happiness, then more power to you.

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 9 years ago

Where did I say anything about "Bernake"? Now if you want to talk about him then have at it.

And tell me "why didn't you see 300 million people marching or protesting?

Why didn't you see even 2 million people marching or protesting?

Think maybe it's because you are led to believe that 300 million people are not satisfied with their current situation when in fact the vast majority of the people in this country are doing just fine?

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

"it's those who have not planned, don't want to be responsible for their own actions and want the government to give them a handout."

Or maybe its people with half a brain that can see where this train ends.

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 9 years ago

No, it's not people with half a brain - it's people who did not have parents to give them guidence. That's the problem with todays society.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

If you know what the guidance should be, post the guidance online and I am sure that a whole bunch of people will be all ears if it makes real sense. We know that we have a BIG problem so we should entertain any new ideas of how to solve it.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Some are just not fit for seeing whats going on.

You;re clearly not that successful or you would be able to put together history along with what is currently happening.

Have a nice night.

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 9 years ago

Oh but I am very successful - never been without a job - always had pay increases and purchased whatever I wanted - not extravegant but moderately.

That's what kept me successful.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

So you tie success to accumulating material goods?

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 9 years ago

Are you that stupid to understand that people don't want to live in poverty all their lives? Maybe you do based upon your response - so have at it - but don't complain about it.