Forum Post: Occupy San Diego Abandons Direct Democracy
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 7:39 a.m. EST by mymarkx
(40)
from San Diego, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Occupy San Diego has abandoned the OWS model of direct democracy and is registering voters without seeking consensus.
After we were evicted, no tents or tables were allowed. Yesterday an Occupier who is a Democratic Party organizer and former Congressional candidate, set up a table to register voters and was arrested for the table, not for registering voters. Democrats claimed he was arrested for registering voters.
Canvass for a Cause came to GA and said they'll set up a table to register voters tomorrow and urged everyone to register to vote. It was announced on Facebook by another SD Occupier, Mike Garcia, as an official Occupy San Diego action, but consensus had neither been sought nor achieved. Mike says he supports "representative self-governance" and doesn't see any contradiction in that phrase.
I don't do Facebook. I'm @fubarista on Twitter. I do see a difference between representative government and self-governance. To me it is the difference between tyranny and democracy.
Good day fellow occupiers, I am Mike Garcia, the Mike mentioned the the post above. The direct action had nothing whatever to do with any political party or organisation. The building management placed a "citizens arrest" on Mr Lutz, an active member of Occupy San Diego.
The following direct action taken by me and some other members of OSD was a result of information found last night including: A; The building is 91% leased by the City of S,D. and is in the "Civic Center". B; The building is managed by CBRE who's chairman is Richard Blum a 1% member. Richard Blum is the husband of our own U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Diann Feinstein gave a "sweetheart" 25 billion dollar deal to her husbands company
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/?page=all). "Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms."
I am not a Democrat. This action had nothing to do with registering voters for any purpose other than to protest the obvious corporate corruption of our government and returning control of the civic center back to the people it belongs to."WE THE PEOPLE!
Best Wishes Always,
Mike Garcia .
tables should be protected under freedom of the press
Three cheers to you Mike for committing yourself to an effective action.
Exercising American democracy is the greatest threat today to the Wall Street corruption and their two party hegemony.
Ray Lutz, the Democratic Party operative who was arrested for registering voters, is very clever. He knew that if Occupy San Diego did anything to challenge, oppose, or try to change the system, the system would penalize them. So he decided that if OSD did something to support the system, like registering voters, he could win his case in court by showing that he was only supporting the system. And he will. But he will be reprimanded for not supporting the system in the precise and exact ways that the system wants him to. This is a fascist tyranny and the nature of a fascist tyranny is that it does not allow people to deviate from the rules, even if they're doing it to support fascism and tyranny.
Whether you are a Democrat, a Libertarian, an independent, or any other voter, Mike, your vote is your civic duty to the system, your support of the system, and your consent to be governed by the system. Your vote demonstrates your faith in the system and legitimizes the system. It proves that while you might wish to tweak or reform the system in some minor ways, you have enough faith in the system not to want to change it.
These are terribly important and nuanced questions. What I would ask you, mymarkx, is this - how do we go about actually achieveing what you advocate? Here is one, and perhaps the only way, that I can think of. We build our numbers until we can actually get not hundreds, or thousands, but millions of people to converge on Washington, and literally take the halls of power. In the process we might see ten thousand people killed, maybe more. Than what? Who would actually govern. If at that point we had no leader to rally around the military would take over, by necessity, really. Otherwise the state of anarchy would leave us open to foreign attack and possible Civil War. Those are just facts. I am pointing this out simply so that those who would like to see a complete change of regime know what they are faced with.
As far as our institution of democratic government is concerned, I don't think we need to change it, so much as overhaul it, to prevent these same abuses of power from ever occurring again. That is possible to do. I think in fact that is our only option without dissolution into civil war, given the political polarization of the country and the inherent complexities of trying immediately to create a new system out of whole cloth. Once again, I point this out as a simple matter of existing fact, rather than as criticism of the larger goal of systemic reform. It is merely food for thought.
I would suggest a nonviolent revolution before resorting to violence. I'm not sure what I'd suggest if it failed, but I'd certainly want to try nonviolence before attempting violence, as violence against a military superpower is a risky proposition.
I suggest, as do many others, that we attempt all possible forms of nonviolent noncompliance, such as building alternative systems, boycotting big banks and big corporations, finding legal ways not to pay taxes (such as simplifying one's life so as to be able to live on less money than the minimum required to file a tax return), and withholding our consent of the governed from the system by not voting in its elections. These nonviolent actions can draw energy and support from the system to weaken it while creating a better system.
I believe in direct democracy, that is, self-governance. I believe, as do most voters, that people chosen at random from the phone book could do a better job than the elected officials in Congress. Since people listed in the phone book have had to pay their phone bills, they have demonstrated a fiscal competence that Congress has not. I don't think the average person is so incompetent that they have to appoint a guardian or guardians to manage their affairs for them, in the form of elected officials. And I think that the danger of a foreign attack on the US or a Civil War is much less than the danger of our empire falling, as all empires eventually do, by overextending itself militarily.
Our present system of government is a plutocracy, a system designed by the 39 wealthy slaveholders who wrote and signed the Constitution to ensure that those who owned the country, the 1%, would always run the country. In order to prevent abuses by the 1% from recurring, we'd have to take the power away from the government and vest it in the hands of the people, which happens to be the dictionary definition of democracy, supreme power over government vested in the hands of the people. As long as power remains vested in the hands of the government, the way our Constitution requires, the government will continue to be vulnerable to being corrupted by that power.
Much of what you see as facts, I see as myths.
I actually agree with at least 80% of what you say here. My concern lies mostly in how to actually implement such changes. As everyone knows, and as is currently being demonstrated in Egypt, it is easier to revolt that to replace what you have with something better - and it's perfectly possible to end up with something even far worse.
The more intelligent people in Egypt fully understood that the election would be divisive and would only result in the military junta remaining in power by controlling Parliament while being able to claim the legitimacy of being a democratically elected government. They tried to organize an election boycott, but failed.
I don't know that we could do any better at organizing an election boycott because the big corporations spend billions of dollars getting out the vote. Egypt ended up in the same position we're in. Our government also claims to be democratically elected with civilian control over the military. But it is really a military junta because the Joint Chiefs limit access to information by classifying documents and briefing the President, so that elected officials only know what the military chooses to allow them to know, and the Pentagon has been known to lie to both the President and Congress,
Since our empire is going to fall anyway, I fail to see why a controlled demolition to bring it down is "worse" than just letting it collapse however and whenever its own hubris dictates. The exercise of control, I think, is less likely to lead to a foreign invasion or civil war than a collapse which is obviously due to a total lack of control.
I don't worry about the absence of government any more than I worry about the absence of private corporate ownership and management. I've seen many successful worker-owned cooperatives. Predictions that such enterprises would collapse if not for capitalist exploitation were not just greatly exaggerated, but have been proven false. I do all my food shopping at a worker/member-owned cooperative organic grocery, and not only can I feel secure about what I'm eating, but I know that the workers are well paid with full benefits and that my money stays in the community. It is better run than the big chain supermarkets, but it is all done by the workers themselves. Since businesses can be more productive and profitable when they are run by the people for the people, I believe that governments would be also.
I don't think the model of a cooperatively run natural foods market is a model on which I would base the tactics of trying to reform the government of the most powerful and complex nation on earth, or for a means by which we might go about achieveing it.
No, it is not a model for reform. It is a model for change. It is a model of running things in a democratic way.
For some reason this country's founders envisioned that it could work, but the Framers of the Constitution betrayed them.
In establishing a centralized plutocracy instead of a democracy or republic, the Framers claimed that it was necessary because of the fact that this was such a large country and it took long journeys by wagon train to get from one place to another. Despite communicating instantly with people thousands of miles away, some people online still seem to feel that we're back in horse-and-buggy days and use the same reasoning.
I do not mean to be flippant here. I will tey to make my point as clearly as possible, and let you know that it is simply my oppinion, which you can of course accept, or reject. First one must hsve their hands upon power before they can reform it in one way or another. So the question of exactly how to reform it should be sidelined for the time being and superceded by the question of how do we get our hands on enough power to actually reform it at all. Thanks for your ideas, which I do respect - I just think these diiscussions, while important are tactically premature - unless you have some actual strategy for implementing your goals.
Since you asked, GypsyKing, I think that the first step to getting our hands on power is to stop giving it away.
I don't mean to be flippant either, although it might look like it at first glance. But I do believe that as long as we continue to delegate our power, we cannot retain it. When people vote in our system, they are delegating their power to others. I consider that to be gross negligence and irresponsibility.
As long as we continue to consent to delegate our power to others, we will remain powerless:
Consensual Political Intercourse http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1035#comment-3158
One of the many reasons that I don't vote is because I want the right to have a voice in decisions and policies myself, instead of delegating that power to others. I don't consider a system in which people delegate their power to others, to be a system in which power resides in the hands of the people.
I agree completely about the current state of affairs. My question is, if you could get everyone to vote directly, which is of course now technically quite feasible, how would we get those in power to accept the outcome of such a vote?
The only way that it would be possible for everyone to have a direct vote on issues and policies, would be if power were no longer vested in the hands of government and was vested instead in the hands of the people.
When the people are in power, there is nobody who can accept or reject the will of the people because the will of the people is the final say.
Before a direct vote could be meaningful, that is, more than just a nonbinding referendum that government could accept or reject, the people have to choose to take power and stop delegating their power to government. Once people stop voting in government elections, it becomes clear that a government no longer has the consent of the governed. It can then attempt to rule by force of violence alone, but it can no longer claim the consent of the governed. Then the people can hold elections and make decisions that do have the consent of the governed. The old, delegitimized government can choose either to step down, or to try to rule solely by force, but it cannot claim to be the sole judge of elections because it is no longer elected to have that power.
Did you know that there are some countries in which the popular vote must be counted, must be verifiable, and cannot be overridden by elections officials, the media, political party superdelegates, an Electoral College, Congress, or a Supreme Court? It seemed like a fantasy to me also when friends who live abroad told me how things are done in their countries, but I checked to see if they were just having some fun with me, and it turned out that they were telling the truth.
Probably as long as just the two corporate pre-selected cantidates themselves showed up and voted it would still be a certified election. Having people not vote, particularly in the upcoming election, with no further plan to ratify a seperate election would be a disaster. Before we go talking about third parties, separate elections and social reforms we must figure out how we will achieve the actual power through these means, or how we will gain power in order to achieve them. Having people not vote to gain power is such a piss-poor plan that to see it coming from someone as capable of framing ideas as you are; it strikes mes as outright weird.
It would be a certified election, but it would not be sufficient consent of the governed to grant legitimacy. I talk about a couple of examples here:
http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172
Legitimacy is conferred on a government when the governed vote to grant it their consent. The government may or may not be powerful, but if a lot of people vote for it, it can claim legitimacy. If it cannot get out the vote, it cannot claim the legitimacy that solely derives from the consent of the governed. It can certify an election and swear the winners into office, as South Africa did, but nobody would give them the respect that is granted to people who can muster a substantial number of votes. Foreign countries and foreign creditors, for example, will give more respect and credit to governments that can claim to have been democratically elected, than to governments which cannot due to a large majority boycotting an election.
Having people not vote to delegate or give away their power, in order to retain their power, is a much better plan than having people vote to give away their power and then wondering why they don't have any power.
Should a majority of US citizens decide that they don't like what our government is doing, and only those who approve of what our government is doing vote in 2012, there would be a 9% turnout, with more than 90% of the electoral choosing not to vote to show that they do not consent to what the government is doing.
The government would certify the election and seat the winners, but nobody would grant them the respect that is given to officials who are elected by a substantial vote.
If the people then held a people's election and 90% of the electorate cast ballots approving such measures as ending bank bailouts, ending wars, and requiring that all future decisions regarding tax expenditures be submitted to a vote by the general electorate, the government could reject the results, but it would obviously be unable to demonstrate the consent of the governed and would have no legitimacy that anyone, here or abroad, would be bound to respect. It would be clear to everyone that such a government was not a democracy or a republic because it wasn't representing the will of the people, and was a simple tyranny that disregarded the will of the people.
If the government tried to punish everyone who had refused to vote, it would have to bring in foreign mercenaries, as most US law enforcement officers and military troops would not arrest their neighbors for failing to vote. Even if the government made voting mandatory, it would have difficulty sending armed agents door to door to force people to vote against their will.
If the legitimacy of power doesn't derive from the consent of the governed, from where does it derive? Brute force may prevail, but it cannot claim legitimacy unless it can demonstrate the consent of the governed.
If elections don't matter, the 1% wouldn't spend billions of dollars on them. If they do matter, then whether or not people vote matters. The 1% could install their puppets in government without bothering to hold elections or spend billions of dollars getting out the vote. It isn't the power they're after, as they already have power, but the ability to claim that their power is legitimate and has the consent of the governed.
If you and your neighbors vote to chip in and build a civic center, you are exercising your power. If instead, you vote to elect an official who will have the power to tax you and to decide whether or not to use that money to build a civic center, a sports stadium, or a gold-plated statue of their late grandparent, you no longer have the power to decide how your money is spent because you gave it away by delegating it to somebody you cannot necessarily influence or control. You can try to talk that official out of erecting the statue, but the final decision is theirs, not yours, because you gave them that power instead of keeping it yourself.
I have the power to decide what to buy for dinner. If I thought I was incompetent to make that decision, I might select a guardian to make that decision for me and assign them full power of attorney over my affairs. They might ask me what I want for dinner or they might be busy and just order whatever they think would suffice to keep me fed. Or they might take all my money and run off to a tropical island. The only way I could get back the power to decide for myself what to buy for dinner would be if I revoked their power of attorney and took charge of my own affairs again.
Most people in this country apparently do not feel competent to manage their own affairs. As badly as government is managing things, and at present government has a historically low approval rating, most people seem to prefer that government make their decisions, than to take back their power and make their own decisions.
If I have the power to do something, that power is mine. If I vote to delegate that power to somebody else, I no longer have that power. If I want my power back, I have to stop giving it away and take it back.
Exactly what part of that sounds weird to you, Gypsy?
If the question of power is primary, then the question of separate elections and social reforms are secondary. I've answered the question of power. I have not answered the secondary questions because I don't think that a new and better system would necessarily have to be modeled after the old corrupt system.
But there should be no confusion with regard to the question of power. If we want to have power, we have to stop giving it away.
This is all purely theoretical, of course, as I see no indication that the people here want power. Most seem content to allow the government to remain in power. They may gripe about the government's abuse of power, but they do not wish to take power away from government.
Responding to the comment by GypsyKing just below this (can't figure out how to put my reply in the proper place), although Congressional approval is low, 40% to 50% of the electorate still votes. It is the election turnout that grants legitimacy. If half the country is happy enough with the government to continue to vote and grant its consent to be governed, the 1% get a huge return on the billions they spend funding election campaigns.
Did you check out the link I posted? http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172
Once they had their successful election boycott, nobody was able to continue to claim that the Apartheid regime was the legitimate government of South Africa. When only 10% of Cubans voted, Batista left the island. And nobody thought that the US-imposed government of Haiti was legitimate with only a 3% voter turnout.
Of course I couldn't convince people here in the US not to vote. The approximately 50% who already don't vote are those who understand that millionaires won't represent their interests, and who not only disapprove of what our government does, but care enough not to put their imprimatur on it. The approximately 50% who vote are those who can't understand the difference between an uncounted vote and a voice in government, and fully believe that we have a democratic system of government, even if it never takes public opinion into account when making policy decisions and sends out the riot squads if they protest.
As the activist I wrote that article for responded, those who vote are those who are not amenable to reason, they are people who believe what they desperately need to believe and it is impossible to argue with beliefs no matter how irrational they may be.
I didn't stop voting and become an election boycott advocate until I'd spent many years in the election integrity movement trying to figure out how we could ensure that our votes were counted, break the lock that the two-party system has on US electoral politics, and be able to exercise our will through our elected representatives instead of having them continue to represent the 1% who own them.
I eventually learned that the courts are useless, even in the rare cases where they have jurisdiction, because the law is whatever the judge says it is and judges themselves are elected. I learned that legislation won't solve the problem because the Supreme Court has the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional , whether it is or not, and there is no appeal from a Supreme Court decision. I learned that at least fifty, and prossibly closer to a hundred Constitutional amendments would be needed to reform our electoral system so that our votes would be a real voice in government, and that it is impossible to get that many amendments passed and ratified without first reforming the electoral system--a real paradox. And when I finally began to understand that we couldn't accomplish anything by voting, I learned that some countries had ousted corrupt governments by boycotting elections.
So it is ridiculous of me to expect others to learn quickly what took me many years, even if they're smarter than I am. They might ascend the learning curve more quickly, but it can't be entirely avoided.
As for those who have too much vested in this system to want real change, or who fear real change, they aren't going to attempt the climb.
I would assert that with Congressional approval being where it now stands our government is already illegitimate in the sense you describe, and yet it is still recognized as legitimate because it still controls the halls of power and the financial institutions. Nobody (and by this I mean no foreign governments or international financial institutions have declaired this govenment illlegitimate. Therefore, it appears to me that those who control those mechanisms of authority hold the power. Period. That leaves us right where we began, no matter the outcome of such a boycott, even if you could convinve 90% of the people to go along with such a boycott, which I doubt. I am not trying merely to be devissive with you, I am simply stating the case as I see it.
This is what I see in San Diego. I'm extremely nearsighted, so I may not be seeing the true picture.
The peace activists are annoyed that the government doesn't respond to their wishes for peace, but they do not wish to deny government the power to declare war.
The feminists are concerned about threats to reproductive rights, but they do not wish to deny the Supreme Court the power to take away their rights.
The gays are disturbed at the difficulties they're having in gaining marriage equality, but they do not wish to take away government's power to decide whether or not they should have it.
The civil libertarians are deeply concerned that government has been eroding and denying our civil rights, but they do not wish to take away government's power to do so.
The human rights activists are worried about our government's war crimes, knowing torture of innocents, indefinite dentention without trial, and assassination without due process, but they do not wish to deny government the power to make and carry out such policies.
The anti-poverty activists are worried about the government's threats to Social Security and Medicare, but do not want to take away government's power to decide such things.
The advocates for social justice are concerned about the deregulation of banks and the bailouts, but do not want to deny government the power to deregulate and to use tax money for bailouts.
The environmental activists are gravely concerned about global warming and the planetary pollution that threatens the survival of life on earth, such as the inevitability of incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima happening here in the US if nuclear power plants continue to be run solely for profit without regard to safety, but they do not wish to take away government's power to make decisions regarding the environment.
And it seems, at least from my jaundiced viewpoint, to be the same with every other group. They are concerned about what the government is doing, and would like very much to be able to influence government decisions, but they do not wish to take away the government's ultimate power to make those decisions.
So my pleas to stop voting as a way to disempower government and restore power to the hands of the people, fall on deaf ears. Worse, I'm considered a fool and a lunatic, if not a traitor, for even suggesting that we the people might be better qualified to exercise power in our own best interests than the government is.
You may think that what I'm saying is weird, Gypsy, but that's nothing with how weird the situation here appears to my admittedly myopic eyes. As you can guess, I think that all these people are much better qualified than their elected representatives to make decisions that would benefit me, them, society in general, and the planet. However I have to admit that people know themselves much better than I could possibly know them, so if they think that government is more competent than they are, there's no way that I could possibly convince them otherwise. And, in truth, they may be right--I have no way to judge.
if the politicians saw OWS registering people to vote like mad they would be scared
Politicians who saw OWS registering people to vote would only be scared if the votes actually counted and if they didn't have the five Supreme Court votes needed to select a President.
you're too cynical. I have removed a US senator and congressman in my state by working with others. I have seen it with my own eyes. The reason America is so screwed right now is not for any other reason than the American people's ignorance, complacency and laziness.
Congratulations on the Senate vote to eliminate habeus corpus and hold US citizens indefinitely without charge and without trial. I'm sure you're very proud of your vote and what you elected officials have done for you.
i'm proud of what i have done in removing them. But there is more removing to do. The point is it can be done.
It can only be done when the 1% allow it to be done. Otherwise they program the central tabulators to flip the votes, or have the Supreme Court step in and nullify the popular vote. Constitutionally the popular votes doesn't even have to be counted.
only if they insitute martial law in which case it's a good thing for the 2nd amendment.
i think every occupy city, world wide, should decide to do whatever the hell they want- remember ows has no leaders. its a parallel structure. occupy new york city has set the vision- a beautiful vision of freedom- and the world will follow that vision- forever. training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43
Sure. Some will register voters to petition the keepers of the status quo to change, some will register voters for Ron Lawl, some will register voters for Obama, and all will register voters to give their consent of the governmed to the government to bash the heads in of every other Occupier.
Everyone doing their own thing within a framework of direct democracy and doing no harm to others would be fine. Doing their own thing within the current system, a framework of capitalism, military empire, and a police state, will not further the vision of freedom.
Cynical complicity
The Wall Street 1% do NOT own the vote. they own the winning margin. A very small mass of blind fools who vote whatever their party tells them to vote.
Wall Street depends on the disaffection and defeatism of a large enough portion of the population to have their winning margin be effective. But it is only effective if enough Americans give up on American democracy. Become cynical and stay home rather than vote against the 1%.
Cynicism, disaffection and defeatism among Americans who oppose the subversive corruption of American politics by Wall Street are the success of Wall Street and the 1%. When you don't vote they win. They know this. while you refuse to acknowledge your own inaction amounts to complicity in keeping the 1% in power.
There is no way to vote against the 1%. In 2008 the 1% split their donations almost equally between McCain and Obama to ensure that whoever won, the 1% would still control the government.
The 1% do own the vote. In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote and in 2004 John Kerry won the popular vote. In neither case did the person who won the popular vote take office. As the Supreme Court announced in Bush v. Gore 2000, the Constitution does not include any right for the popular vote to be counted--whether or not to count it is entirely up to the Supreme Court, an unelected body appointed by Presidents who are representatives of the 1%--who gained office because their multi-million and multi-billion dollar election campaigns were funded by the 1%.
There are two ways the 1% can remain in power, that is legitimately with the consent of the governed, or illegitimately by force without the consent of the governed. Voting is the consent of the governed. No matter who people vote for or against, and whether or not their votes are counted, if there is a substantial turnout at elections, the 1% can claim the consent of the governed. If there is not a substantial turnout at elections, the 1% can only rule by force of violence, because they would lack the consent of the governmed from which all governments derive their just powers.
Government of, by, and for the 1% would become illegitimate and be exposed as unjust if people didn't vote.
Election boycotts are the only known and proven nonviolent way to delegitimize a government. Anyone interested can read about it here:
http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172
As for not voting being "inaction" or the equivalent of doing nothing, if you're doing something wrong, or something that is self-destructive or hurting others, stopping might be a good idea. If delegating your power to people you can't hold accountable has resulted in the devastation of your economy, do you really want to keep doing it? If granting your authority to people you can't hold accountable has resulted in wars based on lies that have killed over a million innocent people, do you really want to keep doing it? If granting your consent of the governed to people you can't hold accountable has resulted in government operating on behalf of big corporations and the wealthy instead of on behalf of the people, do you really want to keep doing it?
It is voting that keeps the 1% in power and is inaction and doing nothing to bring about change or improve the status quo.
Well, not entirely true. One can object to the implied consent, in writing, and declare themselves Sovereign and only subject to common law and our First Constitution.
Would a person who considered themself sovereign, vote in the elections of another sovereign entity or subject themself to the governance of another sovereign entity's laws and Constitution?
The consent of the governed that is demonstrated by voting in elections is not merely implied, it is formally declared:
Consensual Political Intercourse http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1035#comment-3158
Actually, registering to vote in the Incorporated Government's Election is yet one more way of which you give further consent. The first consent you give is by not objecting to UCC, and all it implies. From there, it only gets worse.
In a more ideal America, if it's simply not possible to abolish the Corporate Government, perhaps by allowing it to default, as The People have disconnected from it, at least the non-fraudulent system could possibly by put in place, without any illusions or miles of written legal battles to distinguish which is which and who a person truly is, right up front and parallel to it with it's own system of legislation, executive branch and justice systems.
I have no idea how to bring this about or if the Corporate system can simply be abolished by the people in any other way.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-404410
You may find other interesting tidbits in this thread.
My senior center looks just like Occupy San Diego. It has a big US flag, a voter registration table, and a lot of patriotic people hanging around. My message of direct democracy (as opposed to representative "democracy") isn't welcome in either place.
Occupy isn't any single group or initiative...if there is a divide in tactics then there can be more than one group (and hopefully they can respect each other). If you don't like these tactics, find the others that agree with you and form your own Occupy group that has a different focus. We aren't all going to have the same approach, but we all need to support each other and work together.
I don't think there are enough people here to form another group. The only differences I see among the majority of people here are whether to support the system in authorized or in unauthorized ways. Opposing the system is just downright unpatriotic and an insult to the flag, to the 99% for which it stands, and to the 1% who sell that myth.
Since my personal focus is to oppose the system, and I'm not in a position to move to another city, all I can do is throw my support to individuals and groups elsewhere who also oppose imperialism, capitalism, and the sham elections that legitimize their atrocities and crimes against humanity.
It isn't merely a divide in tactics, it is a divide in objectives. I want government of the people, by the people, and for the people, i.e., direct democracy, and although there are some anarchists who don't want any government whatsoever, everyone else besides me seems to be perfectly happy with our present form or government and just wants it to be a bit more benevolent and to make a few temporary concessions.
I'm the one who is out of step with the movement here (but perhaps not everywhere) and I've had to step back because I won't keep beating my head against a wall.
I've seen others sell out also. One activist I've admired for years, and who recently wrote that unless we change the system, the new boss will turn out to be just like the old boss, sent out an email asking people to support a political candidate. Since he knows that changing the players won't help unless we change the system, I can only assume that the candidate is a personal friend, somebody who has done favors for him in the past, or a member of some group he also belongs to. For most people, principles seem to vanish when personal friendships are at stake.
I've been a lone voice in the wilderness for many years and I shouldn't have allowed Occupy San Diego to get my hopes up. Change will only come when people are ready for it, and San Diego isn't ready. They'll take part in actions against the banks, but they'll continue to vote for the politicians who deregulated and bailed out the banks. They're reformists, and I'm a radical. We don't just have different tactics, we have totally different goals. They want to treat the symptoms, I want to cure the disease.
They did pass the controversial bill to indefinitely detain any American viewed to be a threat. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2815716/posts
Well there you go then, a failed attempt by a few that participated in the Occupy Movement trying to selfishly further their own agenda.
In San Diego, the selfish ones who participated in the Occupy movement to try to further their own agenda, that is, to register voters in hopes that many would vote and thereby support and preserve the status quo rather than trying to bring about change, succeeded totally.
So am now learning that OWS supports true democracy?
Some OWS cities may still support true democracy, at least according to the dictionary definition of democracy.
Occupy San Diego does not support democracy, it supports plutocracy, government by the rich who spend billions of dollars getting their political puppets elected. Occupy San Diego is helping the 1% register voters, because merely spending billions of dollars might not be enough to get people to do their civic duty to the police state and consent to the status quo this time.
Actually exercising America's Wall Street subverted democracy is the most dissident thing that Americans can do in the eyes of the Democrats and republicans.
Re-invigorating American democracy is the greatest threat that OWS can pose to Wall Street's control over the Democrats and Republicans.
They've got the guns but we've got the numbers.
American democracy has been subverted by the two parties and Wall Street. the most revolutionary non-violent and realistic thing that OWS can do to combat the subversion is to exercise the democracy the way that Mike Garcia is doing.
Direct democracy has not been agreed to by a majority of Americans and so it is being imposed by a small elitist group that fancies itself the will of the people by virtue only of its assertion of that will.
Exercising American democracy, as it exists but in new and creative ways, is the fastest and most direct way to undermine Wall Street's subversion of our democracy and government.
Wall Street did not subvert democracy. We never had a democracy. We never had a republic. We have had what the Constitution established, a plutocracy where those who own the country have always ruled it and continue to do so.
In a plutocracy, where ordinary people have no power, they can find new and creative ways to try to petition or influence the rich and powerful, but they can't exercise a power they don't have. You can hope that your votes will be counted, but you don't have the power to ensure that your votes are counted. You can petition those in power, but they don't have to allow public opinion to influence their policy decisions.
In a democracy, the President can't start wars that most citizens disapprove of. In a democracy, the government can't bail out the banks without the consent of the citizens. In a democracy, the people have a voice in government, not just uncounted votes to be ignored.
Direct democracy has not been attempted in US politics outside of the the old New England Town Hall meetings, a few small towns like Arcata, and the Occupy movement GAs, and there are people like you and Mike Garcia who consider that to be subversion, who don't want ordinary people to have a real voice in decisions, but prefer to have politicians funded and beholden to the 1% make their decisions for them.
Why am I wasting my words on people who are so apathetic that they've never even looked up the word democracy in the dictionary to find out what it means, because they think it means what the educational system and the mass media taught them it means--rule by the rich and powerful in which the people can cast uncounted votes to decide which rich and powerful officials they would prefer make their decisions for them without consulting them or listening to them.
Only partially true.
This nation has TWO Constitutions and TWO different governments which have co-existed for years.
Down the left side is what most unenlightened people of ideals would like to BELIEVE we have, it's there, but not easy to access.
http://www.gemworld.com/USAVSUS.HTM
Down the right side is reality for all unless they've claimed their rights as a person and live as shown down the right side.
What a freakin load of drivel. Its no wonder people are laughing at you fool.
America is and always has been a democratically constituted republic.
Your myopic self delusions between what is and what you prefer to be are universes apart. You are so dangerously ignorant that you drag down the entire OWS movement with your self imposed stupidity.
A democratic form of government is one in which power is vested in the people, not in the government.
There are two basic types, a direct democracy where the people exercise their power directly by voting directly on issues and policies, and a republic where people exercise their power through their elected representatives. Not petition them, not make demands on them which go ignored, but exercise power through them.
In order for the people to exercise power through their elected representatives, there are two necessary conditions:
That supreme power over goveernment be vested in the hands of the people (the dictionary definition of democracy), rather than in the hands of a supreme deity, supreme monarch, supreme dictator, supreme parliament or Congress, or supreme court.
That the people are able to exercise their power through their elected representatives during the time those representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, that is, during their terms of office which is the only time that they are in power and the only time that they are supposed to represent the people. Waiting until their terms of office are over and then trying to elect different officials is not a way to exercise power through officials during the times they are supposed to represent their constituents. Allowing them to kill innocent children in foreign countries who cannot be brought back to life by electing someone different later on because voters didn't approve of it in the first place, or allowing them to indebt our grandchildren who cannot be relieved of those debts by electing someone different later on because voters didn't approve of that policy in the first place, isn't exercising the will of the people through their representatives, it is allowing representatives to do whatever they want, and then, if the people don't like it, the people can cast uncounted votes to try to elect different officials who can't be made to represent them either.
Are you capable of posting a single comment which doesn't contain a personal attack? Are you capable of rational arguments and of treating others with respect? Can you discuss the issues instead of just smearing anyone you disagree with?
IT is not capable of such as you ask.
http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_bankruptcy.htm
You are living the illusion of what you believe, regardless if obvious facts and real circumstances, all around you and every day, prove contrary.
Occupy San Diego apparently got consensus and is now officially registering voters and proud of it.
From their latest email blast for 12/3/11
Tables Return to Freedom Plaza The day after Raymond Lutz is arrested while registering voters Occupiers return with tables and voter registration cards to engage in peaceful political activity as is their Constitutional right SDPD tell Occupiers while voter registration is allowed putting tables down is not and threaten to arrest anyone who does so. Occupiers were still registering voters at a table throughout the day and night at Civic Center
Raymond Lutz arrested! Lutz arrested while engaging in the peaceful political activity of voter registration at Civic Center Plaza. Owner/Operators of Civic Center Office Building include Goldman Sachs, hedge funds and Wall St. Banks -- a who's who of the criminal banking industry 0.1% Ray Lutz has filed a lawsuit against the owners and operators of the Civic Center Plaza building, that invoked the citizens arrest. Press conference held Nov 30 at 5pm to announce the lawsuit. Attorney Michael Aguirre will handle the case on contingency basis, but we still will need to fund-raise for court costs and fees, for war chest and defense fund. Fundraising will be set up shortly separate from OSD funds. I daresay they will be very sorry they stepped over this line. Read the text of the complaint by Lutz against CBRE
The ACLU is considering taking up a case to test Pruneyard for the case like what we have in San Diego: The public square where part of it is owned by a private party, and the fact that voters who were registering were not allowed to complete their registrations.
They are oblivious to the fact that they are not acting in accordance with the direct democracy objectives of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but are merely engaging in politics as usual by registering voters.
They believe that the system might need some reforms, but is basically a good system that doesn't need to be radically changed.
I wonder how much of the Occupy movement has also been co-opted into politics as usual, believes in working within the system instead of trying to change the system, and is no longer a movement for change but a traditional movement for reform.
Mymarkx:
You are quite the rigid authoritarian.
aahpat, can you point to one single statement of mine that you consider to be authoritarian?
Am I authoritarian because I don't vote for a government that suppresses civil dissent with riot squads, tear gas, and mass arrests?
Instead of pure ad hominem name-calling, perhaps you'd care to modify it and state a rational reason for your personal attack? What exactly is it that causes you to believe that by not supporting an imperialist police state, I'm more authoritarian than the system and those who support it?
First your criticisms of Garcia. followed by your criticisms of the SD OWS for supporting Garcia are all childish authoritarian bullshit.
They are making a difference. You are masturbating.
Well, they're not making a difference yet. In fact 214 years of voting hasn't made a difference yet--the rich still rule this country. But maybe if you try it for another century you might make a difference. Heck, give it a chance and try two more centuries. If you think we'll still be around. Tear gassing and arresting people for civil dissent is authoritarian. Refusing to vote for a government that does such things is anti-authoritarian.
Are you capable of posting a single comment that doesn't contain a personal attack?
Personal attacks and unfounded allegations repeated over and over are no substitute for rational arguments, but indicate a lack of rational arguments.
Occupy San Diego says they're registering voters so that they can petition the government for redress of grievances. They say they are opposed to the recent Senate vote to declare the US a battlefield and arrest US citizens and hold them indefinitely without charge and without trial.
I asked one Occupier, "If I petition you to buy me a beer (theoretical only--I don't drink), does that mean I'm opposing you?"
There was an OWS NYC tweet that said that people who are fed up with politics as usual should join them. I said that if people prefer politics as usual, they should join Occupy San Diego which is registering voters.
Sooner or later, all of Occupy will come back to the system. Because while the system might have its problems and need some housecleaning, it does work better than any paper alternative when it comes to in practice.
You may be correct, ramous. Not that the system is working or could work, but that all of Occupy will eventually be co-opted.
The little "problems" that you admit might need some "housecleaning," involve the murder of millions of innocent civilians in wars of aggression based on lies, which is, according to the Nuremberg Principles, the worst crime against humanity there is, torture of known innocents, the elimination of habeus corpous, the renunciation of the Magna Carta, and shipping 21 tons of CS gas to Egypt last week to suppress the protesters in Tahrir Square so that the US could impose an election in which the Egyptian military junta, a wholly-owned puppet of the US, would retain more than 60% of the seats in the Egyptian parliament and most of the other seats would be held by Islamists loyal to the military junta.
You may be happy with that state of affairs, but I am not.
The US is supporting the military junta in Egypt because the US is also run by a military junta which controls Congress and the President by limiting their access to information. Only a few Members of Congress have the clearances to read what classified documents the Pentagon releases to them, and they are forbidden to tell their colleagues, no less their constituents, what they learned. And there are many cases of the Pentagon lying to the President and Congress, as in the way the strength of the Soviet Union was deliberately exaggerated, the Bay of Pigs, and Iran/Contra.
The "practice" of drone-bombing innocent children in their beds is not something I can condone. If you think it is working (which it isn't--all it does is cause more people to hate us for killing their children), you're Constitutionally entitled to your belief. You're also Constitutionally entitled to believe that the world is flat, that there is a Santa Claus, and that this is the best of all possible worlds.
You sir, while I disagree with some of your points, have made very sound and excellent arguments. Some of it pissed me off, as you're too smart to have missed my point and pretend I said something else. You should be an official spokesperson, far better than the angry children who listen only to their anger. War kills. Its bloody and it kills innocents as well as enemies. but that's war. I detest war and I don't like that we're in any wars. But I do sadly understand that countries make bargains with each other to support each other's war actions and we're going to be the go-to guy for that.
To be, in the 20th century, still engaging in wars, for anybody, is disgusting. (that same disgust is the reason we closed our own Occupy camp after 5 weeks when Occupy began to show too many signs of violence.) Its not that this world is the best of all possible worlds; its not, it could be better. And its not that this country is the best of all possible countries, its not. It too, could be made better. But it is the best of all possible countries that exist right now. Sadly, not one, not one, of any nation, or people on this planet, have not engaged in war (or other term for killing other humans), so that, very unfortunately, can not be the sole measuring stick of a nation.
Uh, what is it that makes us the best of all possible countries that exist right now, ramous?
That we have more prisoners than any other country?
That we spend more on wars than any other country?
That we're the world's number one arms dealer?
That we train more foreign military and law enforcement agents in the arts of torture and suppressing civil dissent than any other country?
That we use more of the world's resources than any other country?
If I'm so smart, why don't I know what makes us better than everyone else?
If you were as well travelled as I am you'd know. But 'What can he know of England, who only England knows?' US citizens think they have it so bad, only because they don't know what bad is. Im a naturalized US citizen. I could have chosen anywhere in the world. It becomes an easy choice.
For just your first example, in many countries there are smaller percentage of prisoners because if you break the law, you are likely to be shot, not put in a prison. Hell you can be disappeared in my home country, with never a trace, only if someone on the police force does not like you. US is more humane than most other countries in dealing with its lawbreakers. That just the first one.
If you're so smart, why don't you know that millions and millions of people from many other countries, will do anything to come here to the US? I can live with the politics of the US. The ones who can't go to Canada or Australia. If other people didn't love the US so much, you wouldn't have all these colors and religions and languages. But we know the extremely good thing you got here, even if you don't.
I lived for approximately five years each in Mexico, Honduras, and Afghanistan, about six months in India, and smaller amounts of time in other countries in Asia and Central America. I haven't spent much time in many other developed countries besides the US because I couldn't afford to, but I'm not exactly provincial.
Many of the people who are desperate to come to the US are fleeing US death squads or brutal dictatorships installed and supported by the US. In some cases US military interventions or trade deals have caused such dire poverty that people will gladly go anywhere, including the country that caused their problems, in hopes of surviving.
In case you hadn't heard, our Senate just passed a bill that would allow US citizens to be disappeared without a trace, snatched off the streets and held indefinitely in secret prisons here or abroad, without being charged with any crime and without the right to ever go to trial. Unless Obama, who already has asserted the right to assassinate US citizens without due process, chooses to veto it, the US will have no advantage over any other country with regard to personal safety and security. If a police officer doesn't like you, they could simply concoct a story that you're a terrorism suspect, and you'll never have the opportunity to try to prove that you're not. I just now saw a news item that the White House intends to veto the bill, so instead of being disappeared, we can now only legally be assassinated. I'm not sure that's such a good thing.
A friend of mine is an immigrant who only became a US citizen last year. This friend came here believing a lot of the myths about the US, but upon arrival took a bus from the airport and looking out the bus window saw so many boarded up stores and homeless people that she began to worry that her plane had landed in the wrong country by mistake.
Do you know of any other developed country that still has both capital punishment and slavery as legal punishment for a crime? While such extreme penalties are usually meted out primarily to low income blacks and other people of color, I happen to consider such people to also be human and as much entitled to human and civil rights as wealthy whites. In fact I hold that truth to be self-evident. ;)
S.1867. Yeah, heard about it. And I read the bill after seeing the 'sky is falling' panic posts. But I dont take propaganda, I find out.
You'll find nothing in there like that either. Its worthy of snopes.com
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
58 countries still have capital punishment. All countries require their prisoners to work in some form. Sweden pays them 10 kronor an hour.
Tell your friend not to worry. this isn't our worst recession, or our highest unemployment rate or our highest inflation rate. BTW Im fascinated I didn't know that the early 1980s recession happened for all the same reason that the 2008 recession did, including having such major global impact and collapsing foreign markets. She should feel better that we've gone through this before. Im not going to link, you can find it if you want to, and won't look for it if you don't.
58 countries still have capital punishment, but we're the only developed country that does. Putting us in a class with Uganda and Somalia doesn't make us the best of all possible countries that currently exist.
We pay our prisoners an average of a dollar a day for their work, and they perform work for our military-industrial complex and for big multinational corporations that can't find such cheap labor anywhere else in the world.
It is interesting. This movement has been modeled in the shape of successful public campaigns that were nurtured in Eastern Europe, funded by
SourceWatch - Otpor
The Occupy Movement has all of the same stated elements in terms of demographic appeal, ideology, tactics, and focus.
It uses these things because they are effective, and appealing. Once a population has a sense of distrust for the power structure, something like direct democracy is the only solution for their distrust. It's only a short term solution. In the end, people still have to eat, which means they have to work, which means they can't keep up with every single thing happening on a socio-political level.
I'm not sure if blaming all parties is something from other movements or not - but it does have a benefit to the repelicans at this point in the election cycle. Since they are the most corrupt within the system, I would toss that bit of ideology.
People have to vote. If they don't, the whole system of corruption will remain largely unaffected.
If they do vote - no repelican is going to keep their seat very long.
Repelicans do not like direct democracy - they are control freaks. They do not like the opinion of the masses, because they want to fleece us, and we don't like it.
Example - budget debate: over 70 % of the public wanted compromise.
Repelicans said NO. They said ending the Bushite Tax Cut was a new tax
It was a LIE, and not only that, it ran contrary to the will of the people who were overwhelmingly in favor of revenue generation -
even members of the One Percent say they can afford it - and the bastards refuse to consider it!
Failure to address these kinds of lies ensures more lies.
We must vote.
We must confront repelican lies.
Last I heard, Obama was still a Democrat.
He started more wars than Republican Bush.
He gave banks bigger bailouts than Republican Bush.
He asserted the right to assassinate US citizens without due process, repudiating the Magna Carta of the 13th Century.
Confronting Republican lies with bigger Democratic lies doesn't seem like progress to me.
During the '08 Presidential campaign, most people opposed the bailouts. Obama and McCain took time out from campaigning to issue a joint statement supporting the bailouts, to tell voters that no matter who they voted for, they were voting for bailouts.
But voters are too apathetic to care.
you are just a bit loose in terms of how you define more wars - and no matter how you slice it our venture into Iraq was Bushite - based on a huge lie - the likes of which no dem would attempt.
Bailouts? The bailouts themselves aren't the problem - though repelicans insist it is. They scream over GM - not ever considering that if GM had failed there would be one million more people out of work - and many would now be protesting. They also scream over GM because the government actually took possession of a portion of the company, and forced the CEO to resign.
Repelicans find such behavior abhorrent. Reprehensible.
fuck'em.
Bank bailouts are a problem only because the banks have not reciprocated by easing the housing crises by ending foreclosures - instead they reacted angrily to new regulations with new fees - which they then ditched in part because of US, this movement.
as far as killing U.S. citizens without due process - I confess, on the face of it it seems extreme - and yet I can't help, in my darker moments, the urge to do just that - some people just plain need killing.
You go ahead and vote for who you like.
I know I will.
I don't vote, ZenDog. You can vote, whether or not you realize that by voting you are granting your consent of the governed to allow the US police state to bash my head in, but I will never vote to consent to empower them to bash your head in. Not even if it needs bashing.
It is your right not to vote, if that is what you want, and believe is in the interest of the country.
If enough people were fed up with the system, because the system had clearly heard them and responded inappropriately, then such action can be effective at signaling a universal rejection of the government.
We are no where near that point.
Not voting, not participating, not paying attention to what's happening in DC - that is exactly what the repelicans want you to do.
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
I not only pay attention, which most voters don't do, but I disapprove of what is going on. Strangely, most voters also disapprove of what is going on, but they keep voting to consent to it. I don't and I won't.
If everyone waits until enough people are fed up before joining Occupy because they personally are fed up, Occupy couldnt happen.
[Removed]
in short, as could have been predicted, the dems are in this to co-opt it.
which is why we need to form a new third party and flush all the bums out,
and why every moment you people don't bother to help me and listen to me is another moment you are wasting time... they are already ready with their co-opting plans and their standard tactics...
and we don't have a meaningful alternative YET, because all anybodies done is protest in the streets.. not work on the wiki, not do the homework.
===================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA
I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.
For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
The problem, gawdoftruth, is that in order to take every political office in this country for your third party, you'd first have to have a Constitutional Convention to pass at least 50 Amendments to ensure that voters had to be counted, gerrymandered districts were eliminated, the electoral process was transparent and verifiable, corporate money was removed from politics and elections were publicly funded, the Electoral College was abolished, the Supreme Court would not be able to intervene in elections, etc., etc.
And in order to have a Constitutional Convention to pass all those Amendments, you'd first have to take every political office in this country.
And in order to take every political....., etc., etc.
But you'd still be stuck with a plutocracy instead of a direct democracy, because you're trying to reform the old system instead of trying to create a new and better one.
you don't see the systems theory or game theory there. In fact with a 70 percent coalition they can't feasibly rig the elections, and if they did they'd be caught doing it - it would be transparent to everyone. In fact the new third party is crucial because the article 5 convention opens the Genies bottle and they could play that their own way. Only doing both simultaneously both puts the pressure on and the fire underneath their feet AND opens the door for drastic sudden but well thought out and lucid meaningful positive social and economic change.
Seriously, i get sick and tired of having people tell me "the problem" when i am the game theorist and what i JUST said is Actually the FORMULA level solution to the problem.
I'm right, i know i am right, i am dead right, i am absolutely, lucidly, overwhelmingly right, and i shouldn't have to dither with you in a conversation about how to get it done.
And "build a new thing"? your false dillemma is all the more pathetically mind trapped because thats exactly what i propose even as you play smoke and mirrors and try to claim some kind of lucidity high ground.
Built a new thing means creating the platform items, which means doing all the work to work the problems, find real science centered solutions, and have a paradigm shift.
Building the third party IS WORK but if that WORK IS DONE then WINNING EVERY OFFICE is in fact INEVITABLE.
Quit stalling out on the path of right action dithering and chit chatting and philosophizing and spewing ignorant opinions not based in truth or science fact or game theory, and bother to listen as i tell you all HOW it is done.
Either you humans want change or you want stuckness. Heres the rub. Your civilization is on fire and the longer you don't listen the more the shit hits the fan.
Sooner or later people will be in line to actually listen to me because i DO have the answers.
The only question is how much it has to hurt for them to learn the hard way.
You know i am getting tired of being able to say "i told you so". Its not as gratifying as one might think.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Paradigm_Shifts;_How_they_Work,_What_makes_them_tick,_and_how_to_make_one_happen_now.
They can rig the elections even with a 90 percent coalition, simply by programming the central tabulators to apportion the votes the way they wish, not as cast. They would indeed be caught, but they would simply say that it was a "computer glitch," as they usually do when caught. Since the unelected candidates would already have been sworn in by the time that the authorities were forced to admit that there had been a computer glitch, Constitutionally, even though everyone knew the election was stolen, they could only be removed by impeachment, which Congress rarely does--in the case of sitting Members of Congress, "rarely" means NEVER.
As for the Article 5 Convention, we'd need to have that first to get corporate money out of politics, and in order for it to pass and be ratified, we'd first need to elect people who weren't beholden to the corporations. In order to elect such people, we'd first need the Constitutional Amendments to make it possible, so we'd need the Article 5 Convention first, but we couldn't get such Amendments passed and ratified unless we first elected people who weren't beholden to corporate money. In order to elect such people, we'd need the Amendment to remove corporate money from politics first. But to get the Amendment passed and ratified, we'd need to elect honest politicians first.
You seem to think that we can elect honest politicians without first getting the money out of politics, or that we can pass Constitutional amendments to get the money out of politics without first electing honest politicians. Neither is possible without the other happening first.
If you know game theory, you should be able to figure that out.
you seem to think that i haven't already run all that three times. Heres the problem with all of your reasoning. Since EVERY aspect of this game is as corrupt as you say it is, the only sane position to take is that the changes put on the table have to be fundamental, sound, lucid, and clear headed, so that what we are fighting FOR is evolutionary. WHEN the elites then have their con scam and are caught, that propels the game to escalate. Since its all rigged and con scam med through and corrupt, our best bets are to escalate as far as we can on each front and do all of the work that is possible on each front.
What you are in essence arguing against is not operating on the only front that actually matters, given that the only chance we have really of beating that problem ahead of it is to actually have a paradigm shift which convinces the one percent to actually stop being evil and join us. All it takes is a significant fraction of them to do that, and the power of the rest of the them is screwed like that.
I'm getting sick and tired of this. I hav put all of the real solutions on the table and if you all didn;t have your heads up your asses you'd be back at the wiki doing work. Instead, somebody whos got a tiny fraction of the understanding that i do is trying to tell me what i SEEM to think according to them as they spin in strategic confusion.
The real solution is, we don't do one thing and then the other next; we do it ALL simultaneously.
anything less will fail for precisely the kinds of reasons you seem to enjoy pointing out and then failing to see the real game consequences of.
We must come out with evolutionary solutions to 1001 very different high order problems, or this isn't going to fly.
We must implement all of those solutions AT THE SAME TIME, and even then, the monster of corporate oligarchy may not go down any way other than kicking or and screaming and fighting tooth and nail for 2 or 3 election years.
But probably, we can win this all in under 4 months, all you have to do is stop pontificating and chit chatting and BSing me and actually bother to go READ the plan and then be a part of a paradigm shift.
What people arguing from your position clearly manage to miss is the evolutionary energy which exists which has been held in check for 200 years by the DAM of the oligarchies lies and propaganda and culture wars.
We have yet to even imagine en masse tapping that energy and so everything feels stuck. The opposite is true. if you all stop kidding yourself that you can chit chat your way through it and BS each other and BS me, and actually go to the wiki, and read, and then get busy implementing what i have put before us all as work, the energy potential of assorted sciences that have been swept under the carpet, the evolutionary energy of the internet, and the evolutionary energy potentials of society towards evolution in general can be tidal waves that blow all of the old structures out and wash them away.
OR, we can ignore me as usual, and 30 years later i get to say i told you so again to a bunch of ghosts that don;t even know or remember back when i was telling everyone so.
You know i predicted all of this 20 years ago and had the solutions then. Civilization has been 4 months away from fixing it for that fucking long; all you people would have to do is actually LISTEN.
If Constitutional amendments didn't have to be approved and ratified, they would be something that we could do. And they are certainly necessary if people wish to elect the sort of honest politicians that would approve and ratify such amendments. But electing such politicians cannot be done simultaneously with passing and ratifying Constitutional amendments that would remove corporate money from politics and make it possible to elect such politicians--the Constitutional Amendments have to be passed first, before it would be possible to get the corporate money out of politics so that we could elect honest politicians. And in order to get honest politicians elected, we'd first have to get those Constitutional amendments passed and ratified. Both cannot be done simultaneously.
As for convincing a substantial number the 1% to be less evil and join us, I wish you the best of luck. People who have trillions of dollars don't consider themselves evil, they consider themselves to be better than everyone else, which is why most of them won't listen to anyone else.
If you were suggesting something that didn't involve elections and Constitutional amendments, that could be done without trying to work within a totally corrupt system designed to keep the 1% in power, you'd probably get more people interested.
The elites have been caught and their con scams exposed. But they hold the power and they won't penalize themselves for their own corruption. And rather than opposing them, many people admire them, respect them, and wish to emulate them. This is a very materialistic culture where almost everyone wants to be a millionaire and about half of the electorate are happy to vote for millionaires, even while knowing that millionaires are more likely to represent their own class than to represent us.
Look, gawdoftruth, if my friends and I wish to start an organic garden and to start a website, we can do both things simultaneously, as they do not require us to get the consent of elected officials or try to get Constitutional amendments passed and ratified. We can start gardens and websites ourselves, so we can do them sequentially or simultaneously as we choose. But things that require the consent of Congress can not be done by us alone, and it is Congress alone that can decide whether or not do to such things. In order to get a Congress that would consent to getting corporate money out of politics, we'd have to first elect politicians who weren't dependent on and beholden to corporate money. Only then would they approve and ratify an amendment to get corporate money out of politics. But we can't elect such politicians until we first get corporate money out of politics.
Working within a corrupt system involves appeals to corrupt people to be less corrupt. Since it was their corruption that gave them the wealth and power they enjoy, most are not going to be amenable to such appeals, seeing them as nothing but attempts to take away their wealth and power.
I'm all for getting money out of politics.
You seem to think, again, that it is one thing and then the other when the real game is ALL of that at the same time.
Working within the corrupt system increasingly proves its corruption to more and more people, and is a part of the game which must be played while also working outside of the system.
Again, its not one or another, its both.
I AM suggesting something that does not involve elections and constitutional amendments, a paradigm shift. That happens and goes over even without those things, so you are really now just focusing on two details which you want to trip over.
In short, today i have given myself permission not to play. I see transparent cognitive dissonance here despite what is an attempt on your part to communicate whats really going on is you are trying to promote your solution ahead of my solution, instead of seeing that in fact my solution encompasses your solution ,and i am right. You continue to make an argument which you think sounds absolutely reasonable but which i can analyze as programmed meme talking points coming from a propaganda zombot. Just stop. Who do you all think you are kidding on the other side? Some part of you must know better, you can't be assembling these things without some part of your mind seeing the smoke and mirror hocus pocus thats being done mentally. Stop with the mental gymnastics, stop arguing against me, stop making your case for your pet solution, and LISTEN.
Stop with the straw man argument, stop telling me my solution is systemically dependent on two cards which its just carrying as aces amongst 1001 others, and start looking at the WHOLE game outside of your tiny little pet issue.
campaign finance reform and etc lobbying reform is important. But its not going to happen without a paradigm shift, so STOP RESISTING the ONLY path of right action.
Finally, some occupiers are waking up. Way to go San-Diego!
Abandoning direct democracy and going back to politics as usual is not waking up. It is giving up and going back to sleep.
direct democracy would be easy if everyone voted with their names
If everyone voted with their own names, Congress and the Supreme Court would still decide who to swear into office and would point to the turnout, which if people decided to vote for themselves would be larger that usual, to show that the governed had voted their consent to continue to be governed by the 1%.
Representative "democracy" is not direct democracy. Voting your own name in a race for Congress, the Presidency, or local offices, is agreeing to a system of representation rather than of direct democracy. You're differeing on who should hold those offices because you'd prefer that you did, but agreeing that those offices should govern, not the people directly.
one can still vote for representatives using their name