Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Direct Democracy = FREEDOM

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 12, 2012, 11:14 a.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

222 Comments

222 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by oldJack (14) 2 weeks ago

Not freedom from micro-management! If you want to be free to smell the flowers, you got to delegate. No?

[-] 4 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

delegation is necessary for good government. But that is not a problem. The problem is the whole process is run behind the curtain, so public is actually being excluded from the process.

And there is no good deal when you have 3 people discussing over need of the fouth side that is not there. No good if you are fourth side of course.

That is the whole story folks.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Exactly, transparency is the cure.

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 2 years ago

transparency probably demands redefinition of the whole political process also. strong impact on morality also.

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1477) 2 weeks ago

Depends on what is being voted on. If the community has a vote that negatively affects me, even though my actions are not hurting anyone, is that freedom?

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 weeks ago

no... but neither is ...

If the corrupt politician (representative) has a vote that negatively affects me, even though my actions are not hurting anyone, is that freedom?

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1477) 2 weeks ago

True.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 weeks ago

Your democratic say should be proportional to how much you're affected. This is one of the main ideas of libertarian socialism. No one on the libertarian left advocates interfering in things you do that don't affect anyone else.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (25063) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 weeks ago

Kind of an empty - totally empty hypothetical - that you present. Try to clothe it in some sort of detail as to what is being voted on that negatively affects you that affects no one else negatively in your pursuit/activity/actions.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1477) 2 weeks ago

For instance, California prop 8.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (25063) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 weeks ago

You want to continue on how prop 8 affects or does not affect you negatively? Or is it on how it was rejected as unconstitutional that you have an issue with?

You are not being clear at all as to what your position is nor what your problem is.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1477) 2 weeks ago

I don't live in Cali but there were many there who were discriminated against by the "majority" who were not harming anyone.

This is not a hard concept to understand. At least I didnt think so initially.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (25063) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 weeks ago

Still - you have not presented your side - what you think is right or wrong or why you feel so - nor your position on community voting.

I can only at this point state - that gay couples marrying and having the same rights guaranteed as is a man and a woman getting married under the guarantee of equality by the Constitution of the USA = hurts no one.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1477) 2 weeks ago

"I can only at this point state - that gay couples marrying and having the same rights guaranteed as is a man and a woman getting married under the guarantee of equality by the Constitution of the USA = hurts no one."

I agree. And yet there was a vote in Cali that went against that. That is the point.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 weeks ago

Well that took longer than it should have!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (25063) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 weeks ago

And your chiming in with no intention of weighing in on the conversation/issue as presented is - what? Just you being you ? = pain in the ass?

[-] -1 points by flip (7174) 2 weeks ago

just a private comment between friends - not sure why you got in on it? now that you are in on it - you weren't too sharp on this one were you? don't let it eat you up - we can't all be really sharp mentally - i am sure you have other qualities

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (25063) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 weeks ago

[ edit ] And is why this country should step in when the bigoted try to do their own thing and deny equality to people that are hurting no one. That is why this is SUPPOSED to be the United States. If Californica were it's own separate country - then it would likely get it's own way - but it is not a separate country and is bound by the laws of the land = The Constitution and equality for every man and woman.

[ edit ] I still can't believe that the infamous five of the stupereme corpse did not fuck this up as well.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (1733) 2 weeks ago

I lost 5 followers on twitter this morning

the poles can't be trusted

a large voter turn out may result it less fibbing by the counters but the new mail in ballot makes the vote less public

coupling is a natural phenomenon

[-] 3 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Libertarianism the Truth:

Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source. So what is this belief-set, and why is it so popular in certain subcultures? The following is an outsiders view of Libertarianism. From proponents, you might be told

The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk. In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.

To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory. Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion). But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.

Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized. Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships". In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.

Just to pick an example from one public exchange (directed to me)

Too complicated. All you need is one proposition: No person should initiate the use of force against another person.

All libertarian thought flows logically from this. For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."

So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions. This is the difference between him and a libertarian. Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.

Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.

My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism". The response: Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ... On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.

Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's an "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology. And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic". Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept. When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".

The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda. They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. "initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology". It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force". The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology. It was just phrased in their preaching way.

While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business. The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business". That's what what they derive as the inevitable meaning of rights and freedom, as a statement of principles:

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. The whole idea of a contract is that government enforces relations among individuals. The above sentence is a nonsensical, it's conceptually that they oppose all interference by government in the areas of government enforcing relations among individuals. The key to understanding this, and to understanding Libertarianism itself, is to realize that their concept of individual freedom is the "whopper" of "right to have the State back up business". That's a wild definition of freedom. If you voluntarily contract to sell all your future income for $1, they then oppose all government "interference" with your "right" to do this. It's a completely twisted, utterly inverted, perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly "Freedom is Slavery".

This is not at all obvious or what people tend to think when they're told the song and dance about rights and freedoms. This point about contract and Libertarianism needs to be stressed. Often, the "chain of logic" used by a Libertarian will be a fairly valid set of deductions. But along the way, there will be very subtle assumptions slipped in, such as "contract" (meaning business) as a fundamental right. It can be quite difficult to spot, such as a redefinition of terms, or a whopper like the above. But again, it's very "logical", very "axiomatic".

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (1733) 2 weeks ago

right left paradigm

no thanks

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 weeks ago

What do you mean? If we leave out totalitarian ideologies which nobody wants, we can roughly say that the further to the left you get, the more collective/worker ownership (of the means of production) is wanted; the further to the right you get, the more private ownership you want. This is one of the core issues of politics.

Left/left-libertarian policies are what's needed.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (1733) 2 weeks ago

or you could say up = more collective workers down equals less

or

more corrective workers or less collective workers

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I am not just an OWS supporter. I am a part time occupier and I would occupy more if it were not for work and health issues. That said, I find the decision making processes of GAs most problematic and in fact profoundly anti-democratic in terms of my understanding of the word. As they conceptualize the consensus decision making process there is simply no space between consenting to a particular position under discussion or leaving the movement. There is no space in the process for the development of minority positions or a minority perspective. That does not seem at all democratic in my understanding of the term.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

It is actually democratic, but what I guess some people don't realize is that our Bill of Rights is an anti-democratic document, instituted because our founders were wise enough to understand that minority rights will not be protected under a regime of mob rule (indeed, even with a Bill of Rights, it took hard work and sacrifice to remedy injustices against minorities, and we still have much work to do).

That said, public participation in our democracy sucks at the moment, and we need reforms that induce greater public participation in the workings of our society. Yes I used a dirty word ... reform :)

I think a problem, perhaps intrinsic in human nature, is we're searching (probably in vein) for a one pill solution, a logically consistent theology that can forever protect our freedoms, as if liberty could ever run on autopilot.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." -- James Madison, Federalist no. 51.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The very specific denial of minority rights in the way the NYC GA conceptualizes its use of consensus decision making does not seem at all democratic to me and is in no way consistent with my understanding of democracy.

That said OWS remains of signal importance as the most comprehensive radical movement in living memory and I continue not only to support it but to be active in it because of that.

It is really odd that you quote both Phillips and Madison. Phillips was, after all, one of the most consistent radical democrats in American history while Madison, especially in the Federalist Papers, while very much for a republic, was also very anti-democratic. Indeed, the Federalist Papers as a whole are an anti-democratic defense of the Consititution (itself and anti-democratic document replacing the much more democratic, though imperfect Articles of Confederation). There is no disputing this over and over again, in many places, the Federalist warns of the dangers of democracy.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Right, but I think if we stop trying to search for a perfect consistency in everything (like a bunch of theologians), we'd be much better off. I mean, I always find it amusing when people on both sides of a particular issue can both quote the same guy, like say Thomas Jefferson, to support their side of the argument, forgetting that Jefferson was not a mythic god-man, he was just a guy who probably changed his mind over time and had mood swings (like the rest of us).

When the facts change, I change my mind. John Maynard Keynes :)

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 2 years ago

Look guys. You cannot have direct democracy in a Republic. It just isn't going to happen. You would be asking states to also give up certain rights. It's time to drop this idea from your agenda. You are spinning your wheels and wasting time and energy. Focus on things you can actually change or improve.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

That should not be an obstacle, just like The well established totalitarian Soviet union should not be an obstacle for people wanting democracy etc. It should, however, be the end goal, what we should strive for:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 2 years ago

It's not going to happen. There is nothing you can do to make this country operate off a direct democracy.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Claiming that status quo was unchangeable was done by Stalinists, Leninists, slaveowners, monarchs etc, and look what happened....

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 2 years ago

Uh huh, and you think that states will just dissolve as we merge into one huge society? You have a better chance having NASA allow you to ride shotgun on their next space station mission.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I hope that will happen some day in the future.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 2 years ago

But facing the most likely scenario that it will not, what other way could you apply your energy? OWS would be very effective if it stuck to something like getting big money out of campaigns. That is a realistic goal many could get behind. OWS is just killing itself with these other pie in the sky ambitions.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

One should have short term goals and long term goals. Libertarian Socialism is the "end goal"(in my opinion). And Getting money out of politics, higher taxes on the rich etc is also very important.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 2 years ago

You will never get America on socialism. It goes against our very fiber. Shoot lower. Shoot realistically.

[-] 1 points by LM62 (4) 2 years ago

Take a look at the work Senator Mike Gravel has done on bringing direct democracy to the US at the National level. Please watch this 4 min video on how We The People can become the 4th check in our system of checks and balances. http://ni4d.us

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Direct Democracy always ends in disaster.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What´s the point of commenting when you don´t even bother to watch the links?

Direct democracy in a free, non-hierarchical Libertarian Socialist society!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

direct democracy is not about freedom

it is about taking responsibility for ones government

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Did you watch the videos?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the first one

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

An Anarcho-Syndicalist egalitarian soceity with direct participation is freedom. Please watch´em all. Good stuff :)

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Republic capitalism = oligarchy

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Since when? Those two terms have different definitions.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

If money equals speech and speech gives you the right to effect policy then those with all the dollars make all the policies, EX: I am watching my favorite news program, The Young Turks, and it is addressing the inequality in wealth. The Conference Board, a business think tank, sees the same trends. One of its members, Bart Van Art, an economist, says, "we have the most productive workers in the world, and if we are not paying them accordingly in the medium term we're going to have trouble." It is getting so bad that the workers are no longer able to buy the products they make. The kicker in this news story is when the moderator addresses the estate tax.The Waltons bought legislation that ensured they would get their grand pappies standurd of living without creating what Sam had made. Six people in the family make what 100,000,000 people have in wealth. Ten million dollars got them 16.8 billion dollars. Now, 66% of Americans see class warfare, even Republicans are getting the message.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

If money equals speech and speech gives you the right to effect policy then those with all the dollars make all the policies

Oh! You're not talking about capitalism nor an ogliarchy, you're talking about a plutocracy which is rule by the wealthy.

Capitalism is just a way to run the economy, it could be used under various forms of governance from totalitarian regimes to healthy democratic republics.

Ogliarchy means rule by a few. It does not imply that these few are wealthy. If they are then it's the combination of a plutocracy and oligarchy which is called a plutarchy.

Use a dictionary, it will solve these problems relating to definitions. It's impossible to seriously talk about a subject if people to understand the words being used.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

oglia means few, hence rule of the few. but plutocracy works too.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

As I said, ogliarchy means rule of a few but it does not imply that these few have reached their position because of their wealth. It just means rule by a few. Plutocracy means rule of the wealthy, and plutarchy means rule by a wealthy few (combination of ogliarchy and plutocracy).

but that would entail that we are ruled by gold standard metal, meaning the smartest of the smart.

I have no idea how a thing or concept like a gold medal standard could rule humans?

Additionally, I have no idea what a gold medal standard as to do with being the "smartest of the smart".

Furthermore, "smartest" is a superlative that means "smartest of all" thus already including everybody, i.e the smart, not so smart, and the dumb. "smartest of the smart" is a type of tautology. You can just say smartest.

The problem is that your use of language is lax. The lack of precision in the wording of your thoughts makes it hard to understand the ideas you attempt to convey. I suggest you take a writing class.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

wrong, direct democracy can lead to terrible things. democracy is not as much about majoring rule (like you learn in grade school) but about minority rights. the majority quickly trample the rights of the minority.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

We need a society where people are in control of their own life - a society building democracy from the bottom up. Please read and watch this:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by sinead (474) 2 years ago

Watching OWS and reading the minutes of the GAs leads me to believe that Direct Democracy leads to chaos and nothing getting done

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, no. Libertarian Socialism is the society we should strive for:

Read and watch: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 2 years ago

Turn the page already.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

why..?

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 2 years ago

Annoying might be the word.... You've posted that link so many times no one is paying attention anymore.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Do you agree with the text and video?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

We already HAVE "direct democracy", they are called ballot initiatives, and they are literally the reason CA is facing HUGE budget shortfalls.

The problem is that NO ONE votes in favor of increasing taxes...

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, I´m talking about an Anarcho-Syndicalist society with direct participation:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

It depends on who´ll get tax increases. I actually want tax cuts too! - for the workers and working poor! The millionaires and billionaires, however, should get HUGE taxraises.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I do

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

As do I, but sadly we are not representative of the majority of voters... :(

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

hehe. Good!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I´m talking about a free just society building democracy from the bottom up. read and watch:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Your system would require more work than the current citizenry is willing to produce. It is now relatively easy to look, see, and have say in ballot initiatives. Websites, like www.votesmart.org give voters every opportunity to see exactly what their representatives have done in their name. But they just don't care enough to vote, or do so in a fully informed manner.

The simply fact is we are just too busy doing there stuff to care about government and elections. In fact, most people avoid politics and their discussion.

We don't have to 'build' anything but voter awareness.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Yes. Its going to take a lot of work to create a libertarian socialism: convincing, engaging, learning, striking, protesting, change of attitudes, workers´ takeover of institutios etc etc, but when its acieved, itll be so worth it :)

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

People don't care, man... You are going to have to make it WAY more interesting and responsive to get people active.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

it is such a bother to have to hear about what the US does beyond my doorstep

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

I am all for majority rule - that means 51% make the rules the other 49% must abide by. Great! That means Obamacare gets repealed. Latest polls - 53% want to totally repeal Obamacare.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I hope more than 50% of US citizens are not conspiracy theorists. If that's the case, once direct democracy is common place in US, there should be a proposition to send all conspiracy theorists to live in the very north of Alaska. They would all live together in a city called Conspiracy Ville, and they would not be allowed to leave the city limits. They would have a neighboring city called Creationist Ville where creationists would live. If a person is both a creationist and a conspiracy theorist, he would be free to choose in which of these two cities he would like to live.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

yes - the old west - hang em high !

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Direct Democracy = Mob Rule

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, no. Direct democracy = freedom. Read and watch:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

So 53% want Obamacare repealed. Excellent! I am for Direct Democracy!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

huh??

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

isn't that what you want? majority rule?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I want democracy built from the bottom up - a society where individuals control their own lives and work. please read and watch this:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

It´s pretty reasonable if you think about it.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

are you for majority rule or not? majority "consensus or not?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Did you read the article and watch the video. My general rule of thumb is that the more things affect you, the more you should have a democratic say in the decitionmaking, so being able to have a say at the workplace and community. But, what are you saying..that democracy is a bad idea..?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

I am confused. How is that any different than what we have now?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Are you serious!? Read my article and watch the video if you really want to know the differneces between Anarcho-Syndicalism and what we have now:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

yea - so no representation - every issue is a direct vote from the people = majority rules. no?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What did my article, and what did the video below the article say about representation, aries?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

what I got out of it is everyone votes directly on every issue.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"So you are for a small federal government with powers being returned to the states & local governments."

No, I´m for dismantling states and other forms of power centers (including private power centers!). But as long as we have undemocratic concentration of power (private power and concentration of capital) we need democratic government/states for "self-defense" But, like I said: as concentration of private power is gradually being dismantled the democratic power centers - states governments etc -are less and less necessary and we can gradually enter a free, local democratic, classless, stateless society without hierarchies.

"The closer to the people decisions can made the better"

Absolutely.

"That's total Libertarian doctrine & I am totally on board. The part that is fantasy is the consensus vote by everyone on all issues. That's mob rule. If majority rules every time minority rights will suffer"

I´m not sure what you mean. Anarcho-Syndicalism advocates building democracy from the bottom, based on solidarity and cooperation. This would not make minorities, gays, disabled etc suffer, it would include them. But what are you insinuating..don´t you like the idea of democracy..?

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

good luck.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"I don't know where the socialism part comes in"

That´s because the word "socialism" has been so misused over the years. Originally it ment working people taking over production and their workplace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0

"So no leader everything by consensus. So you must be against a big powerful federal government."

Yes, but that´s the "end goal" if you will. A democratic government/state can do good things on the way to gradually dismantling, first of all undemocratic power structures and hierarchies - mainly private concentration of wealth and power. As concentration of private power is gradually being dismantled the democratic power centers - states governments etc -are less and less necessary and we can gradually enter a free, local democratic, classless, stateless society without hierarchies.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

So you are for a small federal government with powers being returned to the states & local governments. The closer to the people decisions can made the better. That's total Libertarian doctrine & I am totally on board. The part that is fantasy is the consensus vote by everyone on all issues. That's mob rule. If majority rules every time minority rights will suffer. unless you can better explain to me how this wont happen.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Why would they do that if it means going broke. Remember that we´re talking a highly organized solidaric society where different issues are delt with on many different levels. The institution, although worker-managed, can´t do whatever it wants. It´s in a community, so neighboring people and institutions should also have a say. Remember also that the lust for cash would decrease as more and more services become free when you need them. Solidarity is an important factor in AS, remember that.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

keeping the decision local and keeping things small is totally a Libertarian premise. I don't know where the socialism part comes in. So no leader everything by consensus. So you must be against a big powerful federal government. you must be against Obamacare like the 53% of the population polled right?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

since the Anarcho-Syndicalist-like society was crushed over 70 years ago, why do you say that..?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

ok - watching your 10 minute video on libertarian socialism. Tell me how it works when every decision in a company is made by all the employees voting on it? Say the topic is increased wages - someone motions for a $5.00 per hr raise and they all vote to agree. and the company goes broke. It's just totally unrealistic. Anyone with talent will group together to create their own company and demolish the losers. This is pure socialist fantasy. The Libertarian part I get. Lake another example. Do Union Delegates represent the best interest of the company & the membership? Why are the unions always pushing for open ballots instead of private ballots? It all looks good on paper until you put it into practice.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

why before?

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

I'm done here - good luck to you struggleforfreedom80. Maybe you ought to move to Spain.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Before or after the anarchists were crushed?

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

before & after.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

And how is what you just wrote relevant to workers self managment in Catalonia in the mid 1930s?

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Catalonia was a disaster

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

same as we have now? What are you trying to say, that what we have now is Anarcho Syndicalism? If not, what´s your point?

All libertarian socialist, or libertarian socialist-like societies have been crushed by existing power structures, but if you´re interested, check out what happened in Catalonia in the mid 1930s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Spain - how did that work out with Franco? A dictatorship up until the 1970's. They are still a mess today - on the brink of bancrupsy like Greece. hahahaha! That's your example hahahaha! Oh boy - we are in trouble hahaha!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What did my article, and what did the video below the article say about representation, aries?

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

recallable delegates -same as we have now. blah blah blah - give me an example of an existing society under what you are advocating.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Direct democracy=mob rule. Our founders were a hell of a lot smarter than you. Chomsky can bite shit. Marxist dickhead.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, no. Anarcho-Syndicalism/Libertarian Socialism with direct democracy and direct participation = FREEDOM:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

DD simply does not work. It leads to tyranny of the majority.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, no. It means that people are in control of their own lives. Please read and watch this:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Well the majority have control over their lives. The minority is at the mercy of majority.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

absolutley not. Capital and enormous wealth is being concentrated on a increasingly powerful - not democratically elected - elite: The superwealthy, the 1 %. We need Anarcho-Syndicalism. Please read and watch:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

I have read that. I'm telling you DD leads to tyranny of the majority. The current system has safe guards against that such as the Electoral College. In DD the majority are the ones in control.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

But what´s wrong about democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities and so on, so that people can be in control of their own lives?

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Because the only people who are in control are the majority. Are you understanding what I am saying? Decisions are decided by popular vote. So the majority's wants are acted upon, while the minority's wants are not heard/acted upon. I agree people should be in control of their lives. That's why I want small government and laws that protect you from hurting your fellow man. Do you understand what I am trying to explain here?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

It means that everyone has a democratic say. On some issues you are the majority, on others the minority. What are you saying, that democracy is a bad idea..? What´s your alternative?? You want small government, but do you want small concentration of private power also. That kind of concentration of power is worse because its undemocratic.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

No I support the current political system. Representative Democracy works the best. Our founding fathers set this country up perfectly and we have screwed it up. We need to go back to our roots and work our back up. DD will lead to tyranny of the majority, you simply cannot argue with that. We have checks to prevent that such as the Electoral College. What happens in the private sector has nothing to do with the public sector, unless people's health is at risk or one of the most basic human rights such as Life and Liberty is being violated. We have separation of Church and State. I think it's time we have separation of State and Private.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Yeah, you want to give the power to private tyrannies. Giving power to people who are not democratically elected is TYRANNY.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Giving power to the majority is TYRANNY.Plus in our current system our representatives are democratically elected You clearly did not read my last statement of separation of State and Private sector.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Giving power to the majority is TYRANNY"

But you´d rather give the power to a the minority, the wealthy..

"Plus in our current system our representatives are democratically elected"

Oh, democratically elected? So power to the majority in other words...?

"You clearly did not read my last statement of separation of State and Private sector."

I read it. That´s how I knew you wanted to give the power to the weathy private tyrannies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

I never said I would give power to the wealthy. Our current system does not give power the majority. Why because we have the house which is driven by populace i.e. Majority. On the other hand the senate is not. The president is not elected by majority vote. In our current system we have a balance. DD does not allow for that balance, which is why it will lead to tyranny of the Majority. I want separation of State and Private Sector because I'm tired of the government trying to fix the economy. People need to realize that the economy goes up and down. We just need to have faith in it, and work out the tough times. Of course some times will be harder for certain people but that's life. At the same time this separation will help eliminate the money out of politics, which is something OWS (even though it will never succeed) is trying to do. So get educated, realize that you cannot just give the power to one group or one person. In this instance there is no better evil. There must be a balance.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Because what you are describing will lead exactly to that."

No, it will not be tyranny.

"Why would separation of State and Private Sector lead to the wealthy being in control."

Because by deregulating and giving huge tax cuts to the private sector - the corporations and the wealty - they will get more power.

"it does not work in the real world"

It worked in Catalonia...

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Oh yes Catalonia. How many people are in that country? Compared to the United States with a population. Do you know what tyranny is? Even if the majority of people have power that is still tyranny.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I want direct democracy in a libertarian socialist society where democracy is built from the bottom up. That´s not tyranny, that´s people being in control of their own life workplace and community.

Seperation of state and private sector, means letting private power make almost all decitions in society, doesn´t it. In other words giving more power into the hands of the wealthy elites, increasing the concentration of private power..

The society we should strive for is one where democracy is the core. A society where capitalism and central state power are replaced by more direct democracy and direct participation. A society where the economic institutions are run democratically by the participants and the ones affected by them. That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities and so on; a society where people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny. A system of cooperative communities that benefit everyone and focus on people´s needs instead of short term profit.:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Do you not understand tyranny of the majority? Because what you are describing will lead exactly to that. Do you understand the definition of Tyranny? It is defined as when the power is rested in one person or GROUP(majority) of people. Why would separation of State and Private Sector lead to the wealthy being in control. All that leads to is both staying out each other's business, unless people's health is at risk. What you are describing may sound great and all, but just like Communism it does not work in the real world. I will give you an example: Say a company is offered a deal with another company, but this deal is only on the table for a few hours ,as other companies are trying for the same deal. You don't have time to ask everyone in the company if they approve of the deal. Your company may not get the deal because you took too long asking everyone's opinions. In that situation you need one person calling the shots. There are multiple issue that are time sensitive that require fast decisions making by one person. Look at history, the Greeks had DD. Problem was that they could not make decisions fast enough and often payed terrible prices for it. Plus the U.S. government does not have that power to force companies to be Democracies. Nor do we want it to have that type of power.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Direct democracy = Oppression and subjugation.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, you´re wrong. Libertarian Socialism is real freedom - a society where people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Freedom as outlined by our Constitution is real freedom. Socialism is utopian and never works under real conditions. There will always be the slackers that just want to sit in the park and smoke dope and complain that others have too much wealth and that they should share the property they have worked to earn.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, freedom is an Anarcho-Syndicalist / Libertarian Socialist society - a soceity where people are in control of their own life. Please read and watch this:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

The vast majority of people want to work. That s not gonna be a problem.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

That link is ridiculous. So we all sit around and daydream, then what? Someone will come up with the idea to grow a garden and all the daydreamers will vote to take their vegetables. Utopian pamp.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Most people want to work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXevpVXzePc

When people can control their own workplace and community theyll become more active and engaged.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Most people want to work when they are sure they will be rewarded for their effort.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Most people want to work because it´s in our nature to contribute:

Please read and watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXevpVXzePc

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

That link is ridiculous. So we all sit around and daydream, then what? Someone will come up with the idea to grow a garden and all the daydreamers will vote to take their vegetables. Utopian pamp.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You say it´s ridiculous, but it seems to me that you didnt check the links out. What in the videos do you disagree with, exactly?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I did. It will not work. There would be no impetus for excellence.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You just have a warped view on what human beings are about.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

How so? Direct democracy means people have control. Representative means that representatives have control and can be bought. I thought OWS wanted to get rid of this.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Representatives are bought because we've allowed money into the political system. We need to get the money out. So our Representatives can represent all of us fairly and equally. Our form of government, a Representative Republic, is not the problem. The monied political system is the problem.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Ok I can roll with that. Although there is always the possibility of that never happening. That was what i defaulted to automatically because I don't exactly believe in a representative democracy because it is not a true democracy.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think it has a very good chance of happening. There are already four pieces of legislation in Congress for this. There are many political movements working on this.

http://movetoamend.org/ http://www.progressivesunited.org/home http://unitedrepublic.org/ http://www.getmoneyout.com/about

Why do you feel a true democracy is better than a representative democracy?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Well to me I would like my vote to actually count for something instead of having it go through someone else. Also it may help others have the incentive to become educated.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I see your point. My problem with this is that personally, I don't want to vote on bills and legislation. That would take an enormous amount of time and effort in order to be educated enough to make those kinds of decisions. I like spending my time on other things. Not reading up on world trade policy, healthcare legislation, Defense Department budgeting, or other boring complicated stuff like that.

Are you going to want to vote on legislation like that? If so, how do I know you are educated enough to make decisions that will affect me? For all I know, a bunch of imbeciles would be voting without knowing the first thing about world trade issues. How can you assure me that this would not be the case?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I see you point as well and to be honest, I can't and that is the problem with my idea. It would take many years for the average intelligence level of the average citizen to get to that point. I can go either way. I would do my best to be educated under mine and maybe not so much under yours.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

too stupid for words

never read a book in your life

read history

your sex-change is astonishing: wherever one of you go: the other magically appears

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

"wherever one of you go: the other magically appears" -

I'm guessing that you're talking about me and Thras. It's not magic. It's modern computer technology, that makes this forum possible.

Did it ever occur to you that we might be interested in the same topics? Really turak, I know it's hard for you, but try to make some sense.

Read history? What part of history should I read? This should be good! I'm counting on you turak, don't let me down.

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

You're a VERY bad liar you are a VERY obvious troll you are OBVIOUSLY illiterate You have NEVER read a book in your life because your attention span is too short, and you cannot retain what you read. The history of the cou9ntry your live in is very easy to study and research You have never researched or studied anything in your lazy slob freak computer life. You frantically want to be accepted as a great wise leader. Your posts are filled with disinformation and misinformation. Covering this forum 24 hrs a day with your blatant bullshit. You have been identified as a troll with numerous handles. Your lies are soooooo boring and obvious.

Technology? Where is the technoogy of you and your sex-change transexual alter-ego showing up together all the time like Gemini twins on this forum? There is no technological reason for this: you fucking stinking lying piece of shit. The fact that you are the same person explains it very easily since both of you ARE one person: it is no surprise that both of your handles are 'interested in the same topics"

AT THE EXACT SAME TIME IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE

on this forum

How fucking stupid are you anyways? You insult my intelligence. You insult the intelligence of every honest decent human being on this forum.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

ok Mr. Cookoo for Cocoa Puffs. You find me boring and obvious. I find you sad but funny.

Thras is not my Gemini twin. But I think it's pretty funny that you think that. We are sometimes on the same thread at the same time and so are like dozens of other people on this forum. Maybe we are all the same person! This one person has super fast typing skills!! You are really only talking to one other person here!

Do you ever read the stuff you write? Do you really think it makes sense?? Please turak, help yourself. Get some medical attention.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Direct democracy means people have control.

In theory

Representative means that representatives have control and can be bought.

In theory and practice


That's not a fair comparison. A quick look at direct democracy in practice and it becomes obvious that this system of organization can also be corrupted. I would even argue that it's easier to corrupt direct democracy than to corrupt representative democracy in which it's easier to identify the corrupted and at what step(s) of the decisional process they are partaking in corruption.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

How do you corrupt the majority? Obviously withholding education is one way but we do that now do we not?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

First, explain how this process of direct democracy would be implemented in practice, then'll I'll be glad to give you several methods that could be used to corrupt it. I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Ok in my opinion we don't have to do it online which I have been reading more about recently because it would require loads more protection than would actually be worth it. I think you could do it the same as we do now but take out the middle men.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Middle men? Is that in reference to our political representatives?

So, you're talking about direct democracy similar to what we have seen in OWS general assemblies, only on the much larger national scale?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Yes I am. And your argument is going to be that there is no way to assure that most people are going to be educated enough to be able to vote on monetary policy or health care legislation and I agree with you. It would take many years for the average intelligence of the U.S. population to raise that much.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

The level of education of the people engaged in making political decisions is indeed important, but that's not what contributes to corruption.

It's quite easy to corrupt the type of general assemblies that have been used by OWS to make decisions.

The fact that it is a seemingly transparent process that involves the whole population leads many to make the assumption that direct democracy is somehow impermeable to corruption. This assumption makes it easy to corrupt direct democracy because many people don't expect this corruption to take place. They believe they are taking part in a perfect system, so they let their guard down.

Another problem is that since there are no clear leaders or representatives, it becomes much harder to isolate corruption and understand where it's coming from.

One way to corrupt general assemblies is to table propositions at times when it is known that the main opponents of these propositions will not be present. Only a few people have the chance to attend all the GAs which means they are favored in the decisional process. If Mr. X and his friends are against an idea that the regular GA members want to propose, they could simply schedule the tabling of this proposition on a Saturday if they know that Mr. X and his friends cannot attend on that day.

Another obvious way is to pay people to support a certain proposition.

There's also the fact that peer pressure creates a flaw in this democratic process. For example, if you're against a proposition that's only getting the support of 40% of the people attending the general assembly, it's quite easy for you to keep your stance. However, the higher the percentage of people who agree with the proposition climbs, the harder it becomes for you to hold your ground. When the proposition reaches 80%, many opponents will cave to peer pressure as they don't want to be seen as the ones blocking the proposition. This will make the support climb to 90%, then again, and again. If you are the only one left who opposes the proposition, it becomes extremely difficult for you to hold your ground. Some staunch supporters could very well wait for you in some back alley if you block their proposition. Then they can just table the proposition again the next day to make it pass.

These are some ways direct democracy can become corrupted, there are many others.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Ok corruption would run rampant which is part of the education problem in your scenarios. However, if the ideas of Mr. X are credible then it shouldn't matter what the other guy's ideas are.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Because there is no such thing as a law. If 51% say they are allowed to kill you and your family because you are a queer, it would be allowed by a direct democracy. Now, while I would agree that there is a certain attraction to the idea that we could vote to kill all queers and liberals, I doubt that it would be a good idea because they might decide to kill incredibly smart and good looking people out of jealousy, and then I would be in danger.

Direct democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

If a direct democracy were to come about the police officers don't just vanish. The system would still work with its checks and balances as it always has but your vote would be counted as something instead of just a waste of time.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are right. The police would be there to make sure the law was followed. If 51% voted to kill you the police would protect those who showed up to kill you and make sure the law to kill you was followed.

[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Do you seriously believe that would happen? I thought you all loved each other and that humans are good at heart.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

It has happened in the past.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

People are sinful by nature, that is why we need to be responsible to God. Democracy will not work. It has been tried and it never has worked.

[-] 1 points by Jehovah (113) 2 years ago

Do not confuse reflections upon yourself with others, my son.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

It is not my reflections, it is written.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Oh Jesus I'm done.

[-] 1 points by Jehovah (113) 2 years ago

Hallelujah!

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I'm fine with people believing what they believe but I don't need it forcefully rammed down my throat.

[-] 1 points by Jehovah (113) 2 years ago

I was celebrating because I thought you were done on these forums, my son.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Yeah not so much. As soon as he brought up your fake savior I decided to take a step back and not reply because it was definitely going to get heated.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Probably.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by buphiloman (840) 2 years ago

When people are their government then there's just humanity

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

That's a beautiful idea in theory.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 2 years ago

Thanks. I wish more people could see that we desperately need to start valuing humanity above abstract concepts like liberty.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny"

Sure.

"when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

The way I see it, ending government should be our end goal, but the important thing is to fight all hierarchies, and most of all undemocratic hierarchies - private business included.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

We don't really need to end the government just downsize from a great dane to an australian shepherd(I.e. on the small end of medium sized) and then keep it on a shorter leash

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

A more important focus is downsizing private tyranny

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Private Tyranny? Do you mean making money?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, I mean undemocratic hierarchy :Tyranny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Oh monarchy. Do we have that?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, private tyranny. Watch the link!

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Cain't I's at schoole

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

His point is that if you indiscriminately shrink the government and only the government it's going to leave a tremendous power vacuum just waiting to be exploited. The way things are right now most industries are dominated by small groups of multinational corporations, in effect creating oligopolies that either squash or take over most of the competition and have no problem ruining the environment, abusing consumers and taking jobs away from Americans (but they do have a major problem with paying their fair share of taxes). If the government gets curtailed too quickly, then you have large groups of people who have lost access to recourse against corporation-led abuses and much fewer if any proactive measures to prevent these abuse from occurring to begin with.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

That´s the end goal. That can only happen gradually when the society is gradually turing classless. Establishing a classless soceity means dismantling all power centers.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Don't worry. The anarchists are a small minority here. struggleforfreedom has some "unique" ideas, but I don't think he's insane really. There are far crazier people than him out here. He's a nice anarchist.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Thanks...I guess... But I honestly don´t see anything controversial about working for local democracy : http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Local democracy? Like people voting on issues in their community? Like, voting to fix potholes or something? Or installing new street lights? Give me an example.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

lol regarding sigh. I deserved that. : )

This is going to sound really dumb, but I can't get my speaker icon to turn on from my task bar. I don't know what happened to it and I don't know how to fix it! I can't hear now. I feel like I'm deaf. I did read your stuff though! I just can't watch the video. Well, I can watch it, but I can't hear anything. This is so frustrating. Dumb computer. Do you know anything about computers?? I'm really not good with these technical difficulties.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I´m no computer expert, sorry. Have you tried restarting it?

The video advocates the same things I´m advocating in the text. You did read the text. Pretty reasonable after all, right..? :)

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Nobody should live in fear of anybody. Our government is us. It is a reflection of us. Why should we fear it? We get what we give. We haven't given it very much. The 1% have given it alot. And their receiving alot from it.

“Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”― Isocrates

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Sure. government can do lots of good things on the way to freedom (if it´s democratic), but it is a power center, and our end goal - what we always have to work for - should be a classless society: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I have to disagree. Anarchy is not achievable. Anarchy by definition will always self destruct. There are huge issues between theory and practice. Give me one example of a successful anarchistic society that sustained itself on a large scale, over an extended period of time.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Libertarian Socialism is also best suited human nature: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Catalonia, 1930s f.ex. Almost 2000 workplaces were run by the workers, and there were very active participation. It was crushed by existing power structures, so we never know what more could be achieved.

Watch these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YftlB3AxBws

Democracy is not unachievable!

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Damn! You're into the thinkers of Ancient Greece?

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

oh sigh. Next.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Oh, you want want more? :) I´ll post more videos later.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

lol. I'm sure your persistance serves you well in many endeavors and can lead to success. I just don't think this is going to be one of them. I could be wrong, I'm just sayin'. Your posts - I'll even give you a bump like this once in a while just because, from what I can tell, you seem like a really nice person. : )

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

thanks. Make sure you check out my blog (including documentaries, videos and links) Hope you like it.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

Yours sff

[-] 0 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Check this topic out.. i wrote and Published it in my Web Site in 7/10/2010!

.. and Nothing has changed ..but for Occupy! ( thank the Universe!)

http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-have-to-be-vewy-vewy-careful-when-it-comes-to-w/

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Is it just me or did half of this thread just disappear? Maybe its me and my technical difficulties again??

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

hmm.. I have not noticed anything out of the ordinary..

So you liked the article "The Society We Should Strive For" right? We are in agreement, yes? You are now a covinced and dedicated libertarian socialist, yes? :)

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Do you remember this part of our conversation? Where is it?

1 points by April (1780) 1 hour ago Nobody should live in fear of anybody. Our government is us. It is a reflection of us. Why should we fear it? We get what we give. We haven't given it very much. The 1% have given it alot. And their receiving alot from it.

“Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”― Isocrates

↥like↧dislikereplyeditdeletepermalink [-]1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 38 minutes ago Sure. government can do lots of good things on the way to freedom (if it´s democratic), but it is a power center, and our end goal - what we always have to work for - should be a classless society: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

↥like↧dislikereplypermalink [-]1 points by April (1780) 29 minutes ago I have to disagree. Anarchy is not achievable. Anarchy by definition will always self destruct. There are huge issues between theory and practice. Give me one example of a successful anarchistic society that sustained itself on a large scale, over an extended period of time.

↥like↧dislikereplyeditdeletepermalink [-]1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 24 minutes ago Catalonia, 1930s f.ex. Almost 2000 workplaces were run by the workers, and there were very active participation. It was crushed by existing power structures, so we never know what more could be achieved.

Watch these:

The reason I know is that I happen to have it open in a second session. I can't find it collapsed anywhere. Maybe its me! But I cannot find it. If it's here somewhere can you post me a link to one of these parts so I can find it please.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

yeah, you´re right. wierd..Ive been commenting a lot lately, hard to keep track where all the different responses that pop up are taking place

But let´s focus on the real issue: what kind of society we should strive for. You liked my article and are now a dedicated convinced libertarian socialist, yes? ;)

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Not exactly. But remember, I haven't watched the video yet because I can't get my speakers to work. : )

And I still have to look into what happened with Catalonia. Without knowing anything about it, I would say that I'm sorry it got crushed. If they were operating within the law, and peacefully going about their business, I think its wrong if somebody did something to disrupt that.

I just think that anarchy societies are unrealistic and not truly attainable in practice. There will be alot of bugs to work out between theory and practice. They will pose their own set of problems that we cannot possible imagine. It think its far more realistic to fix the system we have. Which, I think is a very good system, all things considered. Not perfect. But very good. It has a proven track record of success and we need to work with what we've got.

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

yep agree the Spanish Civil War was wrong to disrupt that. You know, that thing that inspired Americans to fight fascism and Nazis in Spain before WWII?

Please stop regurgitating Noam Chomsky lectures if you haven't the faintest idea what he's referring to

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

But listen, If huge areas in spain - communities and 2000 workplaces - can function well, then why not equally big areas side by side cooperating? If workers in the 1930s can create a more or less anarcho syndicalist society with lots of direct participation, just imagine what we can do in our modern, technological, more wealthy than ever, society.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You point to some places that seem to have some amount of limited success. Or they were functioning at some level. But I'm sure these places had their own set of problems too. It was not all flowers and sunshine.

The other big problem I have with it is replacing capitalism. It is widely recognized that capitalism, for all its flaws, has lifted more people out of poverty, increased the standard of living, for the most people. I prefer capitalism in theory because it recognizes the individual pursuit of prosperity, which I think is more beneficial to society. And in practice it has proven itself succesful. I'm not willing to throw that out to replace it with something untried and untested on a large scale, over time.

I'm not convinced, theory or practice, that it will be better. I think it needs to be thoroughly tried and tested. Work out all of the snags first. Maybe it could be tried in Egypt, it could be an improvement over a dictatorship. They need a new government and economic system anyway.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No society - not even a future highly advanced modern technological Anarcho-Syndicalist society - is going to be 100% perfect. Human nature - although mostly good ( http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html ) - allows different forms of behavior, including the immoral and bad sort. But we should always work for creating a society as good as possible. That would, of course, include making it so that people are in control of their own lives, workplaces and communities, and so on.

"It is widely recognized that capitalism, for all its flaws, has lifted more people out of poverty"

This is not true. Capitalism means that the means of production are privatly owned by individuals who make a profit from other people´s work (cf exploitation /profit) In other words, the value of the worker´s pay is less than the value that was added thru his/her work in the payed hours. That creates a profit for the owner of the means of production who did not create the value, but still gets payed in the form of profit. This profit is hence future investments and more profits creating more capital. So, the capitalist is making money simply by just owning, not adding or creating value. These are the core elements and principles of capitalism. X profitting on Y does not create wealth in it self. Wealth is created thru work. It is people´s contributions to science infrastructure, technology, inventions etc that have created all the wealth we see today. Please read my article "The Free Ride Society":

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320872575_the_free_ride_society.html

It is in our nature to work, we don´t need money-chasing incentives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXevpVXzePc

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

The Spanish communities you talk of were from small villages during the 1930's. There are huge differences between using direct democracy to run small villages based around a few industries, running an international megapolis like NYC, and running one of the biggest nations in the world like the United-States of America. You are comparing apples with oranges.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Well, I want democracy being build from the bottom up anywhere, in big cities, in small towns, at the workplace. The principle of people being able to run thir own life, workplace, and communities - building democracy from the bottom up - is there no matter how the society looks like. A few industries. Well, you could call it that if you will, but 2000 worker run instituions is a pretty good achievement in 1936.

Again, if communities, including 2000 workplaces, can create a society with active participation and workers´s self management, why not equally big areas side by side cooperating?

Concider the enormous wealth, technology, and knowledge that past generations have created for us, I´d say it´s much more likely to have a functioning libertarian socialist society now than in the 30s.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Part of the thread did suddenly disappear. It could have been shadow banned, or might have been caused by an obscure software bug. My best guess is that the user who posted the root comment of the thread that disappeared got shadow banned and this resulted in hiding the whole thread instead of the better solution which would have been to mark his comments as being DELETED.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think you're right. The thread started with Rizzolio. Anyway, here's the beginning of it, for anyone thats interested in picking up where they left off.

1 points by Rizzolio (0) 1 hour ago When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. (e.g. Occupiers) Thomas Jefferson ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]2 points by buphiloman (615) 1 hour ago When people are their government then there's just humanity ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 1 hour ago "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny" Sure. "when the government fears the people, there is liberty." The way I see it, ending government should be our end goal, but the important thing is to fight all hierarchies, and most of all undemocratic hierarchies - private business included.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]2 points by Rizzolio (0) 1 hour ago Ending government? Are you insane. You want to end "We the people"? How about end those who hijacked our government aka "We the people". ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 34 minutes ago That´s the end goal. That can only happen gradually when the society is gradually turing classless. Establishing a classless soceity means dismantling all power centers. ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]1 points by April (1780) 1 hour ago Don't worry. The anarchists are a small minority here. struggleforfreedom has some "unique" ideas, but I don't think he's insane really. There are far crazier people than him out here. He's a nice anarchist. ↥like↧dislikereplyeditdeletepermalink

[-]1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 31 minutes ago Thanks...I guess... But I honestly don´t see anything controversial about working for local democracy : http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]1 points by April (1780) 26 minutes ago Local democracy? Like people voting on issues in their community? Like, voting to fix potholes or something? Or installing new street lights? Give me an example. ↥like↧dislikereplyeditdeletepermalink

[-]1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 18 minutes ago sigh... please read and watch: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]1 points by kingscrossection (980) 47 minutes ago We don't really need to end the government just downsize from a great dane to an australian shepherd(I.e. on the small end of medium sized) and then keep it on a shorter leash ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 29 minutes ago A more important focus is downsizing private tyranny ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]1 points by kingscrossection (980) 24 minutes ago Private Tyranny? Do you mean making money? ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink [-]1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 20 minutes ago No, I mean undemocratic hierarchy :Tyranny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]1 points by kingscrossection (980) 9 minutes ago Oh monarchy. Do we have that? ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink [-]1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 7 minutes ago No, private tyranny. Watch the link! ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-]1 points by kingscrossection (980) 6 minutes ago Cain't I's at schoole ↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

points by struggleforfreedom80 (953) 24 minutes ago Catalonia, 1930s f.ex. Almost 2000 workplaces were run by the workers, and there were very active participation. It was crushed by existing power structures, so we never know what more could be achieved. Watch these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YftlB3AxBws Democracy is not unachievable!

↥like↧dislikereplypermalink

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Thanks for reposting the comments:) How did you get a hold of them..?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I just happened to have it open in another session.

[-] 0 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Looky Here! Most of my Fave's commenting on one Topic.. One that i have to agree with as well...

I have to agree that the majority of US Citizens are not quite 'up on' what real Socialism is. Not without 'Libertarian' attached. That's too bad, as Socialism in it's Truest form works Quite well along side Democracy. It's already been working for thousands of years.. and, Is one of the BEST SYSTEMS to monitor Corruption.

As it stands today.. we are Being forced closer and closer to a Dictatorship.. it's a fact that is happening right Under our Noses!

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Would that be a fascist dictatorship? Or a benign dictatorship?

The latter sounds like a contradiction in terminology, I know....

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

I just saw a great documentary on the History Channel called "Hippies". It recounted the communal experiment of the 1960's. Sounds a lot like what you are advocating here. It turned out to be a disaster. Thats probably why it never took off as an alternative lifestyle lol! Yet you want to give it another try. Good luck lol!

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

ridicule is a sign you´re all out of arguments, I hope you´ll join the fight for freedom and democracy some day. yours s sff

[-] -2 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

Yes, out of arguments, the reason for ridicule. Couldn't possibly be deserved! This is the funniest website on the internet.

But I think you're right, we should all join your fight. I'll see if I have a blue tarp and a drum. That'll show 'em!

[+] -4 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

hahaha! ridicule? how about making an historical observation & trying to save you the time & effort of repeating the same mistake lol! You should be thanking me lol! Definition of insanity: repeating the same behavior & expecting a different result.