Soup

Participatory democracy still uses representatives. Similar to lobbying there are key committees that represent different departments. Legal, environment, food, technology, etc. We're talking about no aristocracy. In other words, we're discussing a balance of power not associated with wealth or fame. If you're a tech person, think of "participatory democracy" as the linux of governments. There's no money changing hands for how the system is programmed. Its open source and everyone is just adding what they want to add because they want to have the best system on the market. See this is why I like this system of participatory democracy. Nothing in our current system happens unless someone greases a politician's palms first. Even if both the lobbyist and politician believe in the same things. That's not the lobbiest's fault, or the politician's fault. It's the fucking system that enables both to continue their petty existence. When you have people working to create legislature solely because they want to make the government better, you create a more humane system. AND THEN, instead of putting it in front of this bipartisan senate that is more concerned about making the other party look like the bigger idiot, you're putting them in front of the community. And the community isn't split up into factions that only pass things if their constituents payed them to pass things. The community's just a bunch of individuals who are going to vote on what's best for them, their families, their businesses etc. When everybody votes together the probability of any bill being more fair is more likely. I totally agree. Education is key to the success of participatory democracy. That's not a failure of participatory democracy--that's a failure of the educational system. We're lucky enough to live in an era where information is instant and accessible to almost everyone. In a participatory democracy it becomes even more self serving to make sure everyone else's education is just as good as yours. And self serving to make sure your education is as good as it can be since you're the one making all the decisions. Also, as we've seen over the course of history, the general populace has changed their minds on a million different things. The shape of the earth, why the sky is blue, who's a person and who's not... That's going to continue no matter what governmental system we use. It's important, however, to make sure the government we use is ready to change and be as progressive as the people are. There's a lot of things in our current government that aren't changing fast enough, or aren't changing in the same direction. That's a little abstract of idea so Im having a hard time applying it to reality. We dont live in tribes and villages, and the main tenant of this "leaderless direct democracy" is to find peaceful solutions that are inclusive to everyone's basic needs. I've got a better example. I'm a motorcyclist. In America only about 6% of the population owns a motorcycle, and only about 2% of the commuting landscape ARE motorcycles. Thats an incredibly small amount of the population, and yet motorcycles are involved in about 30% of vehicle collisions with other vehicles, and account for most of the vehicle-related deaths. Its entirely conceivable that a hypothetical, "United States General Assembly" would vote to ban motorcycles from public roads. I think most motorcyclists would be ok with that since the general contingent of hardcore motorcyclists really only ride on the track anyway. So what about me? I fucking hate being stuck in traffic or in a car and only commute by motorcycle. For most people I'm just being an eccentric retard with a death wish, but I see it as a lifestyle that I can't live without. How do I get everyone on my side? It's not like I can show them my accident record since I've been involved in a pretty serious collision that was utterly my fault. How do you think I should handle that? First off I'd like to point out that at least I have a method of legal recourse. I can take it up with the general assembly. I can directly voice my concerns and the data showing it's not the bike's fault. It's the lack of driver's ed and safety courses. It's the lack of traction control and computerized braking assistance. I have an entire forum to discuss the environmental impacts of the alternatives to motorcycles, the jobs that would be killed and so on. Right now my only recourse is to join a Motorcycle union, lobby some motorcycle riding politician, give him all my money to assure he does the right thing and so on. And in the end, no matter what the decision is ALL information would be consumed by everyone. I would not have been disenfranchised. Everyone would be able to live with the decision for as long as we decided to live with it. I see every incentive to vote in a participatory democracy. I see no incentive for a minority to vote in a democratic republic. In layman's terms you're suggesting laws of anarchism are decided by what's enforcable. If a criminal activity is is too big to jail, it's not a crime. Just remember that if both villages are voting together they are in fact one village. America doesn't hold the UAE to laws that US created. I'm assuming you're discussing a situation like America that is incredibly pluralistic and no where near as compassionate as we like to think. We have a long-standing tradition of tall-fences between neighbors and a modicum of tolerance, but we all know thats not compassion. Now under the OWS system of participatory democracy, BEFORE we all voted, that 10% would have used their opportunity to "block" the movement, stating it's disenfranchising. The movement would be amended and voted on again. This time, regardless if people voted yes or no, the outcome would be a unanimous decision and therefore enforced by 100% of the population. Assuming there is a socialized police force as there is now, sure, it would be payed for in taxes, but the law as it stands would be entirely enforced by the people who wrote the law, which would be everybody. Obviously the other alternative would be for the 10% to create their own community elsewhere and not bother anyone with their practice. Just remember that "block" mechanism is a key part of the voting process. Another way to think about it is EVERY motion is voted on twice. The first vote requires 100% unanimous decision that says "This motion does not disenfranchise any person." Otherwise it's amended and voted on again. The second vote requires a 90% vote to pass. A "no" vote in the second poll simply means "I disagree with the motion, but what everyone wants is what's best." It makes sense for you to want anarchy since you've also been talking about unregulated free market capitalism. The issue with both is, like you said, there's nothing stopping the anarchistic society from violently forcing their will on that smaller faction until it's no longer financially viable to do so, the bigger society collapses under its own weight, and presumably everybody has learned something. The problem with anarchy is that history repeats itself all the damn time. People by nature are selfish assholes. Coexistence is a learned behavior, and as with any learned behavior you need an institution to teach it. It all goes back to why we have a need for regulation.

What rights do you think you have? Just out of curiosity, because by definition rights are given to you by everyone else. You dont have any rights out in the woods. A bear doesn't know you have rights. A tree falling on your house doesn't know you have rights. If you expatriate yourself from every other community, you dont have any rights at all.

I dont understand what you mean by love it or leave it. Are you suggesting there is no compromise within the general assembly? What if I was to tell you that their main prerogative right now is to gain in support, so one of the key parts of voting at the general assembly is the "block." In other words if a motion was placed before the general assembly, anyone has the power to say "If this goes through I'm leaving." the motion will always be amended to include everyone. In other words, there is always unanimous consent for every motion. A "yes" or "no" vote just means you believe that no matter what the outcome is, it's for the best, because the motion has already been amended so that its a livable situation for all. So lets go back and pose that question again. You approach the general assembly that wants nothing more than to find peaceful agreement among everyone, and you want some land to go off and do your own thing. More importantly, you ask for permission to give nothing back. You're likely not going to get the 90% vote you want. In the most optimistic view, people might just be concerned about health of the land when the only person tending to it is you. In the most pessimistic, they might wonder you feel such a larger sense of self entitlement than the rest. The reality is you just dont trust anybody else to take care of your needs. I see a TON of outcomes to this that would be beneficial to everyone. They could say, "ok, you can have this land but you are banned from trading. Everything from that land must stay on that land. After you die if you have no heir then the land and everything you've created is redistributed among the living, or sold to cover the expenses of returning the land to the condition you were given it in." They could say "We'd like to give you this land, but you dont trust us. We are interested in your scientific findings of how much space one person actually needs to be self sustainable, so if we give you this land as a science grant, we in turn want your data." Or they could say "We'd like to give you this land, but we're worried about the health of the land given you're the only one tending to it. We'd like to help you set up your campsite to everyone's liking and in return you maintain it as we've all agreed upon." And so on

That book is an observation of democracy in America in 1834. I think its fair to reopen the topic to discussion. Also AOD you dont need to convince me of anything. I get it. You've always been the guy that wants to live off the grid in a self sustainable lifestyle with no need for community or anyone else. On an instinctive level I think that's a very basic want for any human being, to be in total control with no need to compromise. Lets say, theoretically we lived in a country ran by the general assembly. You went to the committee and said "I want my own land to develop a lifestyle of self sustainability. I ask for nothing else and will give nothing in return." How do you see that playing out? Also Frank, what data are you drawing these conclusions on? Has there ever been a democracy with no leaders or aristocrats? Has there ever been a time when everyone had equal power? That's what we're talking about here. A "Mob" is a very specific thing with very specific parameters to exist. You need: 1. A minority as the ruling class. 2. A majority being persecuted. If there is no ruling class, there is no mob. If a minority is being persecuted, and a majority is ruling, that's something else entirely. Something that has never happened or existed. You can't reference slavery here because races have equal rights.

We were asked to continue this in another thread, remember? http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139335

ok who did this? sik k br0.

I think you meant to post this in a new thread like you were asked to by everyone, but lets continue. Can you cite what arbitration you're talking about? Lets go from there. Yes. I've read the documents. The Hayek reference isn't necessary. Nobody thinks a controlled economy is efficient.

I dunno if it's already been said but anon already backed out when they realized Zetas can use computers too. Same with their police threat, their wall street threat, etc...

Ending People's United and stopping corporate personhood WOULD keep the public and private sectors more segregated... which would be great. Nobody i think disagrees with that. I actually think herman cain's 999 plan looks pretty good. Its not perfect, but its a step in the right direction. Consumption tax > income tax means a more even distribution of wealth, no IRS collection at the end of the year, and might make it easier for poor people to put some money in savings. Problem is it's not completely abolishing income tax and payroll tax, but it does reduce them quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, Im not supporting herman cain. Also why isn't anyone talking about why there's a $5 debit charge? Its because Wallgreens and other stores demanded that they shouldn't have to pay debit transaction fees, which was like 69 cents for every transaction. Are they reducing their prices now that there's no debit transaction fees? Nope. And also, another thing to think about, what do we do about people who have been living on wellfare for 3 or 4 generations?

I agree with you completely. It should be very clear to everyone that my proposal was not for a controlled economy or socialism. Im just as frustrated that this has gone on for six pages and has gotten further and further away from the original point. First you'd dont like news articles, now you dont like podcasts. I can't win. When you do find the time to do research and realize you're an idiot, start a new thread. Unless its related to OWS the discussion stops here. Oh and here http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/documents/Env_Accounts_052609.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

You're probably just looking in the wrong places. Listen to NPR. They get their money from pledge drives, so they're not too worried about corporate sponsors pulling their ad dollars like the rest of the news channels. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/07/141158199/the-friday-podcast-what-is-occupy-wall-street

Once again you've assumed something wrongly and made an argument against that assumption. You're playing with yourself, frank. Shut the fuck up. Or at least stop pretending to direct your stupid posts towards me. Learn to read. What's even more bizarre about this one is that you've chosen sematics over the usage of the word "system." I said it was a "system devoid of morals and ethics." That means, if you speak english, it's not a moral or ethical system. So for you to launch into arguing with me to say "Capitalism is not a moral or ethical system." leads me to believe you're from another planet. Frankly, we're in agreement. People are allowed to do what they want in a capitalist society. And then we have other institutions regulating those people so that they always uphold the best of human nature. Now if you want talk socioeconomics, game theory, psychology, genetics, and the evolutionary behavioral instincts of man and how it all pertains to Economics and OWS, Im all for it. And before you contest that I'm twisting your words, I'm really not. You just can't read and are so hot to trot on anything I say it blinds you from rationality. Give it a rest.

That statement is true. Show me an example of the market regulating itself choosing ethics and morals over profits. It doesn't happen. I said a million times I'm not against capitalism but it needs an outsider to keep things humane and environmentally friendly. You need to learn to read. Im just going to keep reposting this until it sinks in: You can't argue with me because you dont have the cards. All you can do is bluff hard enough to keep this game going.

No you made an assumption argued against your own assumption and looked like a fucking idiot while peddling your libertarian wares. Don't talk to me about historical theory, history, facts, or anything you don't have. You can't win against me because you dont have the cards. All you can do is bluff hard enough to keep this game going.

I love this use of statistics and here's why: This is a pie chart showing you the distribution of wealth in america in 2011. Now you tell me, is it fair?

That would be completely opposite of their entire platform: Down with aristocracy. "A system that requires the right man to pull the right levers at the right time is the wrong system." -Milton Friedman

There you go again not reading the post in its entirety and launching into a rant about some other shit. Nobody's buying what you're selling. Yo casek. I see me and shai, unless spec and 50 got new names and didn't tell me.

What does "Of course slavery was bad, this is ridiculous, and you know it." Mean? I think you missed my point. I'm not suggesting anything. Peter Schiff is suggesting that all the problems with the economy were derived from government regulation. He wants government regulation gone. I'm saying thats historically inaccurate. And Obama didn't endorse OWS. He said he understood where OWS was coming from and their reasons for being upset. OWS responded by saying this wasn't a political movement and they had no desire to be co-opted politically.

Exactly. Nobody's saying capitalism is bad. Slavery, however, is bad. Schiff is saying the government is inefficient and the market can regulate itself, but the government is the free market's moral and ethical compass.

The point about slavery was that a free market will trade any commodity they can get a price for, because capitalism is a system naturally devoid of morals and ethics, and requires government to step in and regulate the market. Schiff TRIED to say that slavery was caused by government subsidy. There may have been government officials that at one point owned slaves but the entire institution of government is not responsible for slavery. Slave trading came first, so his point was historically inaccurate. And the 1950's had segregated communities and unequal rights between races and sexes. How can you say conditions was better then for everyone when women weren't allowed to go to any college besides secretarial school? Protesting corporate personhood is protesting lobbying and the government. Rich people pay fewer taxes on their income. It's really simple. Taxes should be equal for all classes.

I'm not gonna diss Peter Schiff for being a loud-mouth libertarian because I really think he should become more involved in the OWS movement. Ok not him personally, but him as just another pair of jazz hands at the general assembly. All the economists should. The biggest issue OWS has right now is the disproportionate demographic of people involved. Way too many fucking libertarians are going down and protesting things they shouldn't be focusing on. Regarding some of the points Schiff made: -The Term "Meme" has been around for ages. Milton Friedman knew what "meme" meant and used it in his TV episodes. -OWS was protesting the government this whole time alongside protesting wall street from the fucking beginning. -Big government has always been a response to big labor and big capital. If deregulated markets created fair working conditions and a fair distribution of wealth, there would be no need for big government. -The 50's MAY have had higher wages and cheaper products, but I dont know enough about the 50's to comment, what the surrounding reasons for this to be and if it's even possible to compare life in the 50's to now. -A deregulated market only corrects itself AFTER it crashes and would be too late to fix if government didn't come in. The great depression was not caused by government. It was caused by banks shrinking the money in circulation to a third. What we don't like to talk about is that -When we have a recession the entire COUNTRY becomes poorer because it means less GDP, less tax money, the currency is weaker, and so on. -Goverment did not create slavery. The merchant class and farmers created slavery. -He makes a comment that DC is richer than silicon valley. No it isn't. It's EXACTLY as rich as each other, with median income growth equivalent in both districts. In other words: The private and public sector are getting equally as rich while the average median household income in america decreases. -TARP was created for the government to buy up all the toxic assets and get them out of the economy, because soon as they're gone we can get back to economic growth as usual. The reason TARP failed was because it was too hard to determine what price they should pay for the toxic assets. Even today WALLSTREET has an impossible time figuring out mortgage-backed securities are worth, so they just sit on the books by the thousands in banks and drag the economy down. If TARP could successfully figure out a fair price for the assets and at least see a return or break even on the bonds, then TARP would've been a success. And alternately, if WALLSTREET could figure out what toxic assets were worth, TARP would've never been created. So while we play this game of "Who caused the recession first, big government or big capital?" It doesn't matter. Everybody that wanted to be in charge of government and the economy and failed should be held accountable.

Not sure if it's been said but a state senator was among the OWS'ers arrested in Oakland. I can't find out what senator that was, and Im guessing he doesn't want to risk losing his job over his participation.

So you've gone from stating the only fact you had on Adam Smith was that his book was big and heavy to now claiming to know what he was talking about. Adam Smith was a huge moralist and committed to public morality or as he called it "fellow feeling" or the golden rule of "do unto others" or just empathy. Therefore for Adam Smith it was completely inconceivable that the efficiencies of the free market, which he correctly identified as "Enabling the thousands of inchoate decisions that need to be made every day to make an economy work." which could never be made effectively by government or a command economy, but which those decisions should be made within the context of a moral vacuum with no rule that people should abandon their responsibilities of citizenship to create or not create ethical moral and legal frameworks for which the market decisions would be made is absolutely anathema and unacceptable and incoherent with the intellectual underpinnings of free market capitalism. So how do we assist capitalism in its moral and ethical void? Expansion of the public sector. Historically we've increased state ownership and state capitalism as natural affect of growing capital and labor. You argue that state capitalism doesn't come in the same box as free market capitalism, but capitalism doesn't exist without people and all of their moral and ethical dilemmas. People don't like to be mistreated and dont like to mistreat others. Look at the differences in Canadian and American Banking Systems. The american banking system was deregulated while the canadian system was not. Which one had a crisis recently? Essentially there will always be a need to regulate the economy. Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts because they interfered with the fair regulation of the market. Franklin Roosevelt with the Glass Steel act to go after the banks. JFK brought in legislation for truth in advertising. THESE WERE ALL THINGS THE STATE CREATED. Richard NIxon created the environmental protection agency because people are entitled to know the quality of their food and water. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market economy, only a deregulated one, and those have never turned out good.

You haven't got a clue what you just said.