Forum Post: OWS Demands
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 3:20 p.m. EST by ItsOnlyMe
(43)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Serious question - What qualifies OWS to make "demands"?
We have rule of law in the USA; elections determine our leaders. Why don't you elect some candidates that think your way, instead of DEMANDING it?
The constitution ....trying reading it sometime.
Yeah, it says we elect people. That's what you should be doing.
That is only the standard method. Their are "failsafes" in the constitution. One is we have right to protest and peaceful assembly . We also have the right to remove, by force if necessary, anyone from power that we deem not worthy or a traitor.
Technically a majority of congress/pres are traitors. They are suppose to do what the people want. They dont even consult the people. They do whatever they want. Which makes them a traitor.
Wrong again. They are elected and can do what they want within the law. If you don't like what they do, you vote them out, via a recall or the next election.
What you & your ilk are proposing is anarchy.
You REALLY need to read the constitution and the many works of our founding fathers. If any of the founding fathers were alive right now they would be leading a revolution.
"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. " - John Adams
Actually it says more than that. So stoping being a lazy ass and really read it instead of trolling.
No shit, it says more than that? Thanks, junior.
What it doesn't say is that the govt. should give in to demands by a bunch of know-it-alls who don't even know what they don't know.
ELECT leaders you like instead of acting like the country owes you.
Sure lets elect more leaders just as corrupt as the last one.
give me a leader that isnt already a millionaire, someone who comes from the working class then sure.
Maybe YOU should run for office. You know everything. Help out your country.
maybe you should too, you seem like your sarcastic enough to be popular. Be remesent of your high school years.
A labor party, to check and balance government. Unions could fund this instead of buying off conservative dems, who sell us out anyhoo.
How about none of the above on all ballots? If NATA wins there has to be a new election, but with new candidates.
In our history, there have been many movements where people protested and then demanded equality. Eventually, those people we elected get the hint or they are pushed out of office and new ones take their places that implement the equality that was demanded.
This is not a serious question. OWS is "qualified" to make demands of our leaders because, in a democracy, the leaders are accountable to the people.
We do ultimately want to elect candidates that think like us to office. But part of making demands is articulating what it is to think like us; the other part is ensuring that these candidates keep their promises once they're in office.
So that's why OWS is qualified to make demands, and that's why we are making them.
Well articulated, BUT - perhaps OWS should have amassed a list of "demands" BEFORE starting to demonstrate. As it is, there's a scattershot approach, with demonstrations in many cities and NO ORGANIZATION. You need more than a vague potpourri of accusations about banks, rich people, etc.
That's a valid position. But with a genuine grassroots movement, things don't usually work out so neatly. Before people started to demonstrate, there was no OWS that could amass a list of demands. Instead, people came out because of a shared sense that Wall Street must be held accountable for its actions and that it currently was not. What exactly "accountability" means is something we've been talking to each other about ever since. It didn't take long for people to settle on some basic kinds of demands: regulate markets, prosecute white-collar crime, allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire, and get money out of politics. My hope is that, as these conversations continue organically, we will ultimately be able to come up with an agreed-upon set of concrete demands and that we will be able to hold elected officials accountable to them. For a good example of how this conversation is working out, check out this thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
Sure, it's possible that the movement will fail to coalesce and rally around anything concrete. But that's just how grassroots movements go. I'm hoping for the best and, in the meantime, I'm doing what I can to help it succeed.
Institute a national publically financed open primary system (with instant runoff voting) and a direct vote for President (end the Electoral College).
Make voting mandatory and Election Day a National Holiday.
Reinstitute the Glass–Steagall Act and completely separate investment banking (securities) and commercial banking (deposits).
What brilliant ideas. You should run for office & make those changes!
There are many ideas, the key grievance is that money corrupts - we need to get money out of politics and have Publically financed elections - free air time and debates -
The People declare what is ethical in "Business".
We need to declare a World Wide manifesto, beginning with: "Business" operates at the pleasure of the people. Any other suggestions?
Business operates at the pleasure of the people? I think more accurate would be that government butts out and allows business to compete fairly. If big business didn't have big tax breaks/and regulations that prevent competition than we would all be better off. With our current system, it is much more expensive for most of us to open and run a business in america unless the government is on your side. Look at Obamacare, all business must pay for healthcare, unless your Walmart or McDonalds. WTF it's hard for me to compete with walmart now, how will I afford this payroll hike?
An Open Letter to Occupy Wall Street Protesters
Congratulations! You are successfully focusing public attention on the root cause of our political ills. Moreover, you are doing so with dignity and grace -- qualities which will not only influence more people, but make it far harder for the Establishment and their political agents to employ their normal repressive methods. You occupy the moral high ground; do not give it up no matter the provocation.
But, as surely you must know, this act is only the first in a long drama. The system you protest is robust and designed to withstand challenge. The banks and corporations from whom you wish to wrest power are well organized and have, over many long years, fully institutionalized their political and social controls. Our adversaries have waged class war for well over a century, have much invested, and everything to lose -- a long and difficult struggle lies ahead.
With this in mind, now is the time to consider and shape a second act, even as the first continues to unfold. To be successful, this act must not only engender widespread protest but also dramatically enumerate that discontent. Or else, as is happening already, your efforts will simply be dismissed as theatric, but essentially meaningless, commentary by an insignificant fringe of malcontents.
And therein lies the essential contradiction -- the only undeniable measure of and outlet for public discontent is the ballot box. Yet elite control of both political parties makes this a futile exercise. Past well-organized and powerful protest movements were defused and broken by an electoral process dominated by party candidates. Third parties have, historically, been marginalized and had little practical effect. Moreover, time is short -- the next election is barely a year away.
But what might happen if you inject some unpredictability into this well ordered system? If you explicitly reject both party's candidates? What will their media report on election night if millions of us join your protest by writing in "None of the Above" on our ballots?
What might happen indeed...
Very well written DSams. We need to break out of the propaganda machine of the MSM. The people continue to show overwelming support for one candidate and the media is scared to say his name. He is embraced by more of the Republicans/Democrats/Veterans than any elite groomed puppet. But the media just tells us "oh that's crazy old Ron" "small government, bring the troops home, end the fed, end the illegal income tax, repeal the patriot act(more like the constitution shredder act), let states govern themselves" No american would want to support that stuff, right? I mean our policies have worked this far, lets just stay the course.
According to former President Clinton's history professor at Georgetown University, for the elite "[t]he chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method ... [E]ither party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies." (pp. 1247-1248 'Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time')
Ron Paul, as you point out, proposes significant policy changes, thus is an unacceptable candidate from the elite's point of view, and must therefore be marginalized. In the view expressed above, politics, as far as the public is concerned, ought be limited to mere questions of personality, style and perceptions of party affiliation. However control of policy is where power actually resides.
Pretty hard for a group, no matter how big they are to demand anything and get results, especialy when they are not the ones holding the winning cards! To have demands met you will need more than vague ideology, you will need a plan and some reason for the rest of the people to buy into your rhetoric, to be the 99% you really need to be 99%, not say your the 99 and really be more like 35% of the 99% that arent wealthy, more snd more my working class friends are saying what a bunch of disruptive unproductive folks the OWS group is, this country has a system for elections, if you dont like how things are either field enough candidates with your ideals and get them elected or learn to game the system as it is.
It often seems that there isn't anyone to vote for who supports what we want to see happen. Sometimes they say they do but then when they get elected they fall short.
1st amendment.
That allows you to demonstrate peacefully, not necessarily have your demands met. You need to be part of the political process.
Maybe it's time to fix the political process. Maybe it's time to do whatever it takes to get that done. And no one and nothing will be able to stand in the way of what is about to happen :)/
Didnt we have a revolutionary war based on demands? Hmmm....
food for thought.
So you're for a revolution?
Its happening now, just peaceful.