Occupy Wall Street

[Soup forgot his password]

despite this voting nonsense, the majority can still take my rights. why do you refuse to acknowledge this?

 

what does it matter if 90% vote to kill me and i vote not to? im still dead. my position is my life isnt up for a vote. you think people should be able to decide what rights people have and force everyone into this mold. this is very dangerous, it is very tyrannical and very anti liberty.

 

im 100% in favor of civil disobedience. im simply not in favor of 90% of the population forcing their will on others. and why is it 90%? why not 50.00000000000001%? the only 'democracy' im in favor of is unanimous consent. if someone doesnt consent, they should be exempt from what ever policy, action, whatever the 'mob' wants. that is liberty.

 

lets illustrate this:

 

3 robbers walk up to you door. they demand your stuff or your life. you say, GTFO. they say, well, wait here a second, we are democratically inclined philosophical robbers. lets put this to a vote. we heard you favor democracy. 3 robbers vote to take your stuff. you vote no. they take your stuff. because you are on this nonsense about 'democracy' you must let them. i would shoot back. see the difference? i defend liberty, you defend whatever the majority wants.

 

*feel free to insert something about how the majority would never do that right about now* (even though that is what government through democracy does every day...takes peoples property and rights at gun point)

 

If me and 90% of the country voted to kill you on the grounds that we want your stuff, I wouldn't. Why? Self interest. We'd be setting a precedence that it's ok to randomly select members of the community, have them killed and rob them. Everyone including me would fear who would be next. Plus wed have to divvy your things up evenly amongst the community so id barely get anythimg. Plus

How many people would we disenfranchise in the process? You have to remember that it's not 90% of all he decisions. It's everyone making all the decisions.

 

Then there's the block. Because nobody wants anyone to be disenfranchised from the process you have the right to block a movement that would force you to expatriate. And three robbers don't represent a community so that's not a realistic example. Plus thats only a 75% vote and not enough for concensus.

 

There's a lot of game theory and psychology that goes into this. Right now

We have a two party system that exploits their leverage for selfish personal gain. If you broke up the two party senate into individuals and forced them all to vote on solely their own self interest you'd weaken the influence lobbiests have on any one party and youd come to a concensus much faster because there is no us vs them. Look at why the super committee was created: so senates could interact on a more personal level. Their party influence is lessened. They listen to and respond to eachother on a more individual level. The entire psychology of the senate changes and this game of chicken that the senate plays doesn't occur.

 

Also start thinking about what you think 90% of America would actually agree upon. Or since this i a global movement, think about what 90% of the planet would agree upon. They'd have to be some pretty basic instinctual tenants of society like the golden rule.

 

Onh and 90% is unanimous consent. If I vote no but agree to put it to a vote and if 90% of the population want something then I'm probably being unreasonable, that's me consenting.

[angelofdeath]

What am I trying to accomplish? I see something good happening in my city and I want to help out.

 

Since I'm not easily bought or sold, I have no demands nor am I trying to win anything. I just happen to have skills that apply to the situation so I'm putting my efforts there while seeing everything strictly from my own point of view.

 

People are finally beginning to set class issues aside and talk about what's affecting them, which is something I've been waiting for my whole life. So if there was anything I would like to accomplish, it would be to keep that going....communication is easily the biggest threat there is, plus it's easy and (usually) free.

 

I would say my personal politics are not exactly in line with what most of the people downtown believe but that's not up for discussion most of the time. Usually we're too busy trying to figure out what the next move is going to be.

 

That's pretty much what it comes down to...I'm too busy to worry about the details, there's shit that needs to get done and I needed something to do that was in line with some of my ideals.

 

so you are pretty much just getting wild, to get wild with no reason behind it. got ya.

 

so are you the anti capitalist property destroying type or the camping out type?

 

at least when the bonus army was camping out in DC, they wanted their bonuses they were promised. it seems OWS is camping out until capitalism is overthrown or at least until they get the Free Stuff Army gets their peice of the pie, their legislation enacted to cripple others in the name of democracy, and the like.

[angelofdeath]

If me and 90% of the country voted to kill you on the grounds that we want your stuff, I wouldn't. Why? Self interest. We'd be setting a precedence that it's ok to randomly select members of the community, have them killed and rob them. Everyone including me would fear who would be next. Plus wed have to divvy your things up evenly amongst the community so id barely get anythimg. Plus

How many people would we disenfranchise in the process? You have to remember that it's not 90% of all he decisions. It's everyone making all the decisions.

 

well, i dont you or 90% or 99% making ANY of my decisions. how about this, you leave me alone and i'll leave you alone? deal? i would never use force against you for camping out with your friends in city parks, and talking about the class struggle. but the moment you try to use force against me in the form of voting for politicians who then direct guys in badges to come and extract my money to pay for your kids schooling, your grand parents retirement, or for your healthcare, then we have a problem.

 

its quite odd that you selected that type of reasoning. because this very second, 'the majority' has voted in a govt that taxes people, takes their income, (THEFT) and they have no choice in the matter.

so your scenario is already happening and the majority is already forcing people to conform to their whims in a myriad of ways. stuff is already being taken.

 

 

And three robbers don't represent a community so that's not a realistic example. Plus thats only a 75% vote and not enough for concensus.

 

i love how you try to theorize so much on this, but the fact remains, that your belief set ALLOWS for rights to be violated, simply if other people want it.

for instance, since you choose to ignore my example that totally smashed your logic, lets try it another way.

im sure you have no problem if instead of the 3 robbers killing you, 90% of the 'community' or lets say the country, vote to extract every single bit of wealth of those making over 500K a year. this is 'social justice' to you im sure, yet i see it as nothing but theft.

 

Also start thinking about what you think 90% of America would actually agree upon. Or since this i a global movement, think about what 90% of the planet would agree upon. They'd have to be some pretty basic instinctual tenants of society like the golden rule.

 

i could care less what 90% of the people agree upon. i only want to be left the fuck alone. i dont want any 90% telling me what to do in any way shape or form. im sure you could get 90% of the people to agree that theft by the state, i.e. taxation, is not theft. im sure you could of gotten 90% of the people 15,000 years ago to agree that slavery is legitimate. i contend initiating force against others is wrong, and it doesnt matter if its some how legitimized by a bunch of people supporting the use of force. its not legitimized. the basic leftist theory sort of goes like this:

voluntary contracts and interactions are wrong and exploitative, but social contracts pulled out of 90% of the populations ass that force others to take part in the agreement who dont want to, are totally legitimate.

 

Onh and 90% is unanimous consent. If I vote no but agree to put it to a vote and if 90% of the population want something then I'm probably being unreasonable, that's me consenting.

 

wow.

you are probably being unreasonable. hahaha. this made my night.

those silly explorers back in the day who said the earth was round....and those 90% who said they were heretics and stupid idiots....yeah, those silly round earthers were just being unreasonable. those silly slaves who objected to being enslaved, but the 90% of slave owners said the slaves belonged there ....yup, those damn slaves were just being unreasonable!

[angelofdeath]

"or you need to allow for people to opt out of the voting process and, by extension, the jurisdiction of the vote."

 

 

very very very very very very very very very well put.

 

however trying to convince soup that people should be able opt out of his 'democratic majority rule' paradigm is like trying to convince a slave owner to just let his slaves free. they believe in force. they believe in mandatory compliance with their edicts. they believe that a mythical percentage of people have a right to govern and essentially own and control other human beings. simply because they got together and formed a 'consensus' and declared this democratic polity to be the owner and controller of the tax cows on the feed lot.

[Soup]

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.

[angelofdeath]

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?

 

uhhh... i think we know the answer to that and this is the issue at hand.

the argument you are trying to put forward is largely circular. its sort of like the 'love it or leave it' argument. in fact it is the love it or leave it argument.

the issue is whether the 'general assembly' has a right to rule in the first place. i say it doesnt. and in essence you say it does and if i dont like it, i must go.

 

i wonder if you would ask native americans who have just been subjected to british and french colonial (or later american) rule and genocide that same question you posed to me.

[Soup]

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

[angelofdeath]

by the 'love it or leave it argument' i am talking about the old right wing come back to the anti war protesters. 'why are you protesting, dont you love america? if you dont like it, GTFO.' its always interesting to hear this logic coming from the left, given that they used to think the love it or leave it rhetoric was silly.

 

what im telling you is that, no 'general assembly' has ANY authority over my rights AT ALL. its sort of like you are saying that the general assembly owns me, but we are just dickering over the details of what im being forced to do. sort of like....'you can do whatever you want, as long as well all agree to let you.'

 

my point is i own myself. i dont want to be part of your general assembly and it has no jurisdiction over me. i dont want to go to any meetings and i dont want to vote. i want to be left alone. now, if YOU want to be part of this general assembly, that is your right. and i would never use force against you. all im asking is you to afford me the same courtesy. if you want to make participation in this new form of statism voluntary, then im 100% in favor of your doing it. but the moment you start forcing a freedom loving people under its dictates and start talking about how we are subject to these 90%'ers whims no matter what, BUT we get to vote on it.... is no different than nozick's famous 'tale of a slave.'

[Soup]

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.

[Fist 666]

libertarians are fucking crybabies.

 

taxes are theft. i'm not free because i can't own my own m2 50 cal to protect my property in my own special unnecessary way. i should be allowed to dump whatever i want into the earth if i own that acre of land.

 

waaaaah.

 

you want to be a part of society, there are going to be sacrifices you make. or get the fuck off the grid and stop crying. i'm done with crossfire for a while, this rhetoric and line of reason aggravates the hell out of me.

[Soup]

Sure, its worthy of discussion, but there are very relevant observations contained within that book and similar literature.

 

No, I'm not aware of any historical examples of a formalised direct democracy without representatives.

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.

 

 

If you know of one, post a link. There has certainly been a number of cases of both direct democracies and relatively stable leaderless societies, but one in absence of the other and that's not particularly what we are talking about here. On reflection, it seems my concern for constitutional restrain is redundant, by definition, a formalised direct democracy must have rules and parameters, even if this is to say that everyone can vote, a 90% majority passes law, no-one has the right to jurisdictional exemption, and everyone has to pay into the fund to enforce law. So a constitution with protective measures is a must, the issue is what exactly are its contents.

 

 

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.

 

Sure, in the traditional political sense of the word 'mob' it has been understood as the antithesis to an informed/empowered political class, but it is not the definition of the word mob that is particularly in question here. It is the concern for the effects of 'mob' (as shorthand for a politically uninformed populace) power to overwhelm minorities within a direct democratic system. I would even agree that there is a stronger incentive to become politically informed in this hypothetical context, however there is certainly no guarantee of this occurring.

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.

 

 

 

Speaking of incentives, it might be instructive to view this problem as incentive based. For the sake of argument lets compare a situation of anarchism to a situation of leaderless direct democracy. In an anarchistic context, if I and the majority of my village find a particular practice of the neighbouring village (who happens to be 10% of our size) to be obnoxious to the extent that I wish to forcefully put a stop to it. In order to achieve this aim I have to first convince everyone its a good idea act upon this practice forcefully, then maintain that is a good idea when everyone is taking time off from work or whatever else they are doing in order to raid the neighbouring village, then maintain that it is a good idea even when the confrontation occurs and members of my villages raiding party have been injured or potentially killed in the process, then if I successfully overwhelm the neighbouring village I need to then maintain that it is a good idea for a number of our village to remain there to prevent the practice from re-emerging. There are a lot of forces working against this process. People from my village who are only partially engaged with this process are dissincentivised to take forceful action as it comes at a personal cost, which is directly relative to the effort and extent they are willing to commit to the cause.

 

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 this context, where an ongoing mechanism of enforcement is to remain, it would rely on complicit parties to either man the neighbouring village or at least fund someone else to do it. As there is no method to force the majority to do this, the extent to which it would be enforced would most accurately represent the will and wealth of the aggregate of the most offended in the majority village. Within this context, enforcement of rules also have a naturally occurring sun-down clause. If members of the majority village begin to not see the value in personally investing in the suppression of the neighbouring villages practice, the funding for the rules enforcement will dwindle until the point that it collapses.

 

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.

 

 

In contrast, if in a leaderless direct democracy both villages in combination took a vote on the acceptability of the practice in question, the vote would pass as my 90% village has a sufficient majority to pass legislation. From this point it would become the law of the land that the practice is now banned, and being a law there is already political infrastructure in place to enforce it. This political infrastructure would necessarily rely on taxation, as it is a coercive rather than voluntary system we are discussing, which means that the cost to any given individual to enforce this rule is optimally minimised as it is spread across the population (even members of the neighbouring village). This removes a degree of disincentive to acting forcefully, as it means those who wish to have the law enforced do not pay any more than those who simply think the practice isn't a good idea. Furthermore, where it comes to actual enforcement, reliance on complicity of the individual who will provide this service is also optimally minimised. Regardless of the enforcers particular thoughts regarding the practice, or their personal willingness to invest in its enforcement, they are already in the role of enforcing a bundle of other laws and will be paid regardless. In this sense the naturally occurring disincentive to the exertion of force is optimally minimised at each stage of the process.

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.

 

 

Now, the only way the neighbouring village can reclaim the use of its practice is to attempt to convince my larger village of its merits. Even if this is possible, as per the rules of a direct democracy, a vote must be taken before the rule is cast from the annals of legislation. Even if a 89% majority of the population now disagree with the law and feel the neighbouring village should be able to exercise their practice in peace the law will still be enforced as it requires a 90% majority. Moreover, each time a majority consensus is reached, it comes at a cost to those who take the vote. In this way, the cost of an election must be accounted to first enact law, then potentially remove it. Even if the neighbouring village is now engaging in their prized practice again, with the majority of the larger village turning a blind eye because they no longer feel it is a problem, it may be more costly to remove the law than to leave it in place. Which would leave the door wide open for various enforcement shenanigans.

 

 

TDLR; Even in a leaderless direct democracy with a 90% majority rule to pass law, there exists a weak mechanism to dynamically reflect the will of the people. Disincentives to exert force are minimised as the cost of enforcement is optimally minimised, and law is enacted and removed at overall greater cost and through a clumsier mechanism than an alternate anarchistic system.

 

btw. The intention of this post has not been to argue for anarchism, although if we are talking about leaderless societies I feel it is a much better form, but more to better illustrate the problems of a direct democracy by way of a comparison.

 

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.

[Soup]

This is semantics but what you just described isn't an anarchistic system. You described how anarchists would work to destroy a participatory democracy by abusing the block. A block doesn't stop a motion from passing to its second phase of voting. It moves the motion to discussion to be amended. You would then have to stand in front of everyone from neighbors to parents and personally explain your reasons for blocking. The goal of this discussion is to amend the movement so that you and your family or friends aren't forced to expatriate yourselves from the group. If your goal is to simply weaken the union it won't work.

 

Coercion suggests that there is no logical reason for someone to participate in the system, and that you are being forced against your will to participate.

[Soup]

You are only allowed to block out of fear that you, your friends, or your family would be forced to expatriate yourselves from the union if the motion is passed.

[Soup]

You trolling? The exact opposite is true.

[angelofdeath]

libertarians are fucking crybabies.

 

taxes are theft. i'm not free because i can't own my own m2 50 cal to protect my property in my own special unnecessary way. i should be allowed to dump whatever i want into the earth if i own that acre of land.

 

waaaaah.

 

you want to be a part of society, there are going to be sacrifices you make. or get the fuck off the grid and stop crying. i'm done with crossfire for a while, this rhetoric and line of reason aggravates the hell out of me.

 

ahh...wahhhh....those damn slaves were cry babies! look, they had food, clothing, and a free place to stay! if they want to be part of society its just the sacrifices they have to make!

 

i think many would 'be off the grid' if you and your govt's would leave people alone. did it ever occur that the reason why the 'fucking crybabies' dont secede from govt rules is because....wait for it..... ITS ILLEGAL? and resistance to the state will get you killed.

[angelofdeath]

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.

 

so what you are suggesting is that you personally dont own your own body.

 

every person on this planet has the right to do whatever they want, so long as they dont interfere or aggress against another's rights.

 

no, rights are not given to you by everyone else. they exist as part of your humanity. you are trying to say that 'rights' are positive. that there is such a thing as a a right to have someone else pay for your healthcare or for someone else to pay for your education. i say we have negative rights. you dont mess with me, i wont mess with you. if anyone initiates force against you, then you can defend yourself. society does not give you rights.

 

community and government are 2 entirely different things. one is voluntary, the other isnt. i dont need any other people to tell me i have the right to life, liberty and property. it exists as part of my humanity. i think attempting to compare inanimate objects and lesser than human life forms to humans is rather silly.

 

i take what the declaration of independence says literally. people are endowed by their creator (another way of saying 'as part of their humanity) with inalienable rights.

[angelofdeath]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

so what you are saying, as ive stated before that you will not out and out admit is that its totally 100% fine to take away someones rights if a bunch of people decide to do it. and since you voted on the matter, you voiced your opinion, you have not had your rights taken.

 

this is silliest logic i have ever heard.

 

how about this solution...instead of changing the current system where you need to lobby politicians to exercise your natural rights to one where you get to put forth a little case in front of the body of tyranny yourself and get to cast your one vote against the 90%, why not just tell the govt to F off, be like ghandi and tell them they can kill you but they'll never have your obedience, channel michael collins and refuse to ever comply and defend your natural rights? how about supporting the position that anyone should be able to opt out if they want to?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

nation states are tax jurisdictions. what exactly is keeping the current system of top down govt largesse from enforcing their will violently on the smaller factions?

 

 

i'll ask it again, is your direct democracy, voluntary? can one choose not to consent? tell me how this is different than what we currently have?

 

why dont you just leave me alone and i'll let you have your 90% majority.

 

the reason why the left sees democracy as a force of good is because they are around a bunch of other lefties, the free stuff army, etc that have no problem with using govt to redistribute wealth, enforce their will on others, etc because its what large groups of the population want. large portions of the population also thought blacks were only fit to be chattel slaves . they have no problem violating peoples rights to get what they want. if 90% of the american population were in favor of limited or no government, i think the direct democracy supporters would change their position completely about violating the rights of the minority. its always great to preach about what the 'majority' wants until you become the minority. your system sounds worse for the prospects of individual freedom than the current US govt arrangement is.

[angelofdeath]

Coercion suggests that there is no logical reason for someone to participate in the system, and that you are being forced against your will to participate.

 

it doesnt have to be a 'logical reason' it can be ANY reason.

so by default a system that you support that forces people like myself and franktronic to participate is nothing but a system based on slavery.

 

i know i've posted this on this forum before, but you must read this and you must tell me how your system is different:

 

http://www.duke.edu/web/philsociety/taleofslave.html

[TheoHuxtable..]

Occupy Oakland seems to be the new epicenter; making more noise than OWS right now.

 

Here in L.A. the Occupy movement is relatively tranquil compared to Oakland & NYC one.

 

 

But I wish the anarchists in Oakland would stop discrediting the Occupy movement, and stop hijacking it as their own just so they can break and burn shit.

[abcs]

Whoever is responsible for shit like that fireboy at the top of the last page really needs to cut it out.

Watch how fast popular support for the protests disappears if this devolves into anarchy. Regular

people can sympathize and morally support this cause because it affects them too but

displays like that will scare them away

Occupy protests also need some realistic goals. Destroy capitalism is not that realistic

[mosluggo]

This probably doesn't belong here. But I dont have time to look around for the right place.

 

NY foreclosure firm: Sorry for mocking homeless

 

BUFFALO, N.Y. – The head of a foreclosure law firm whose employees mocked victims of the mortgage crisis at a Halloween party last year apologized Wednesday to an outraged advocate for the homeless who said the firm showed "a disgusting lack of sensitivity."

 

Pictures from the Steven J. Baum law firm's 2010 Halloween party turned up last week in The New York Times, which said it received them from an unidentified former employee.

 

The pictures show people dressed to look homeless and a sign reading "Baum Estates" near part of the office decorated to resemble a row of foreclosed homes. Another picture features a tattered green tarp over what appears to be a hovel for the homeless.

 

The Baum law firm in suburban Buffalo is one of the largest-volume mortgage foreclosure firms in New York. Last year, it handled nearly 40 percent of the 46,572 foreclosure actions brought in New York courts, the New York Law Journal reported in February.

 

Amid an investigation by the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan, Baum agreed last month to pay $2 million and change its practices after admitting to errors in legal filings that it blamed on the high volume of mortgage defaults and foreclosures it handles.

 

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also is investigating the firm's practices, a person familiar with the investigation said, speaking on condition of anonymity because active investigations are not discussed publicly.

 

After denying to the Times that employees had mocked those who had lost their homes, the firm has in recent days acknowledged the costumes were inappropriate and apologized for last year's Halloween party.

 

The news comes as foreclosures continue to create a drag on the American economy and protests have erupted around the nation to protest what activists say is rampant corporate greed and influence on government that maintains a crippling disparity between rich and poor.

 

"I again want to sincerely apologize for the inappropriate costumes worn by some of our employees at our Halloween Party in 2010. It was in extremely poor taste and I take full responsibility," Steven J. Baum said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press on Wednesday. "I know people were extremely offended and people have every right to be upset with me and my firm."

 

Baum later met with Dale Zuchlewski, executive director of the Homeless Alliance of Western New York, who had sent a letter demanding an apology and offering to educate employees on the plight of the homeless.

 

"Your firm and its employees profit at the misfortunes of others and are an active participant in making people homeless in the first place," Zuchlewski wrote. "Allowing employees to participate in a company sponsored function such as this shows a disgusting lack of sensitivity. ... Mocking others is a former of bullying that simply cannot be tolerated in our society."

 

After the meeting, Zuchlewski said Baum reported that he didn't know about the party at one of the firm's offices, but that he took responsibility.

 

"He offered no excuses, apologized several times and has offered to have himself and his employees volunteer for homeless causes on a regular basis," Zuchlewski said.

 

 

ASSHOLES

[shai]

so you are pretty much just getting wild, to get wild with no reason behind it. got ya.

 

so are you the anti capitalist property destroying type or the camping out type?

 

at least when the bonus army was camping out in DC, they wanted their bonuses they were promised. it seems OWS is camping out until capitalism is overthrown or at least until they get the Free Stuff Army gets their peice of the pie, their legislation enacted to cripple others in the name of democracy, and the like.

 

Uhhhhhhhh.....if I had to pick someone or something to align with it would probably be the Diggers, who I'm pretty sure you won't have much affinity with but that's okay.

 

I don't want to get sucked into a debate about my politics because that's not what this is about. It might help if everyone were to set aside the politics and economic theory for a minute, look at what people are doing, and how big of a shift in the zeitgeist had to take place in the past three months for them to take action. You can superimpose whatever you want onto whatever occupation you want, but if you're looking for clarity regarding the motive that won't help.

 

Hopefully that was clear enough. Anyway....

 

I've been saying this a lot since Wednesday, and I'll say it again- what happened after the strike had nothing to do with the folks who have been holding down the park. In fact, I went downtown and helped clean up the mess in the rain with about 40 other people...buffing graffiti voluntarily was not as weird as I thought it would be since I felt like I had to prove that I wasn't an dumbass and I actually cared about my city.

 

Which I do. And I care about my community and my friends and that's why I'm doing this.

 

In other news I went to SF and checked out their camp, wound up getting stranded and sleeping outside in the rain. For some reason I'm not mad about this...I got to show them some support, and I gained some perspective on how good we have it here in Oakland.

 

Speaking strictly for myself, my mood and outlook on the world has drastically improved in the past couple months. I mean, I'm still a cynical asshole but I'm nowhere near as bummed out as I was at the end of August.

[almost1ner]

[angelofdeath]

Diggers[/url], who I'm pretty sure you won't have much affinity with but that's okay.

 

I don't want to get sucked into a debate about my politics because that's not what this is about. It might help if everyone were to set aside the politics and economic theory for a minute, look at what people are doing, and how big of a shift in the zeitgeist had to take place in the past three months for them to take action. You can superimpose whatever you want onto whatever occupation you want, but if you're looking for clarity regarding the motive that won't help.

 

Hopefully that was clear enough. Anyway....

 

I've been saying this a lot since Wednesday, and I'll say it again- what happened after the strike had nothing to do with the folks who have been holding down the park. In fact, I went downtown and helped clean up the mess in the rain with about 40 other people...buffing graffiti voluntarily was not as weird as I thought it would be since I felt like I had to prove that I wasn't an dumbass and I actually cared about my city.

 

Which I do. And I care about my community and my friends and that's why I'm doing this.

 

In other news I went to SF and checked out their camp, wound up getting stranded and sleeping outside in the rain. For some reason I'm not mad about this...I got to show them some support, and I gained some perspective on how good we have it here in Oakland.

 

Speaking strictly for myself, my mood and outlook on the world has drastically improved in the past couple months. I mean, I'm still a cynical asshole but I'm nowhere near as bummed out as I was at the end of August.

 

i dont know brother. it just seems fruitless if there isnt a clear objective. it seems like its just people out protesting to protest just for the hell of it, but if no one knows what they are protesting, whats the point? whats the point of shutting down a port? whats the point of camping out? there was a raw milk activist who recently went on a month long fast, he finally started eating when the regulatory body gave their word they would talk to them. i used to admire the anti war activity. it had a forward message of end the war first and foremost. these occupy things are like social events framed as 'doing something.'

 

even the tea party crowd had basic objectives and were calling for a redress of grievances, however fruitless that may be. occupy just seems to be protesting markets in general. i just dont get what the goal is. shutting down all commerce? destroying capitalism? beheading the rich? seizing wealth? over throwing the govt? the protests im more in line with are getting govt off everyones back. seems like most of the occupy people just want to take control of the ship of state, remove the corporate influence and then use the state to THEIR advantage. i have no interest in doing that.

 

one thing does make me LOLZ. i realize that most of the occupy movement are using the black bloc tactics, etc. but it does make me laugh because it wasnt to long ago when the same lefties that are part of the occupy crowd were calling anyone who went to a ron paul rally or gun rally to be racists or neo nazi's. they seem to be getting a dose of their own medicine when everyone is saying that occupiers are all vandals, 'anarchists' and arsonists.

[Soup]

So who makes the judgement on the validity of my attempt at a block? From what I can tell, you are proposing that I make a case to the same majority that wants to rule against me to begin with. If I front members of the majority and explain that I do not consent to be governed by their vote for fear of them passing a law that infringes my peaceful activity, and they reject the validity of my concerns, then the blocking process is purely ceremonial. This is because I have no true power to block, I only have power to have my case heard before coercive legislation is passed. This is not much different from the current sham consultative stage that most representative governments use before passing legislation. It doesn't matter what people say in the consultation, the broad decisions have already been made, the policy is just further symbolically legitimated by 'consulting' key stakeholders.

 

This is why real world examples are easier to discuss than these hypothetical ones. I want you to think of a single example of something you or someone does, that isn't hurting anybody, that people would want to stop or at least limit to a certain area or time, that you would utterly refuse to compromise. If you are of the no-comprimises sort, chances are you're better off in the woods alone. Nobody's stopping you.

 

 

so what you are suggesting is that you personally dont own your own body.

 

every person on this planet has the right to do whatever they want, so long as they dont interfere or aggress against another's rights.

 

no, rights are not given to you by everyone else. they exist as part of your humanity. you are trying to say that 'rights' are positive. that there is such a thing as a a right to have someone else pay for your healthcare or for someone else to pay for your education. i say we have negative rights. you dont mess with me, i wont mess with you. if anyone initiates force against you, then you can defend yourself. society does not give you rights.

 

community and government are 2 entirely different things. one is voluntary, the other isnt. i dont need any other people to tell me i have the right to life, liberty and property. it exists as part of my humanity. i think attempting to compare inanimate objects and lesser than human life forms to humans is rather silly.

 

i take what the declaration of independence says literally. people are endowed by their creator (another way of saying 'as part of their humanity) with inalienable rights.

 

What does that mean, own your own body? I guess I own my own body, but what's stopping a horde of barbarians from skinning me? Nothing, if I'm alone. What's protecting that same horde of barbarians from skinning each other? The laws of the tribe. Get it? Owning your own body is just free will. Rights are given to you by the society you're attempting to alienate yourself from.

 

 

 

so what you are saying, as ive stated before that you will not out and out admit is that its totally 100% fine to take away someones rights if a bunch of people decide to do it. and since you voted on the matter, you voiced your opinion, you have not had your rights taken.

 

this is silliest logic i have ever heard.

 

how about this solution...instead of changing the current system where you need to lobby politicians to exercise your natural rights to one where you get to put forth a little case in front of the body of tyranny yourself and get to cast your one vote against the 90%, why not just tell the govt to F off, be like ghandi and tell them they can kill you but they'll never have your obedience, channel michael collins and refuse to ever comply and defend your natural rights? how about supporting the position that anyone should be able to opt out if they want to?

 

Where is it scribed across the sky that riding a motorcycle on a public road is an inalienable right? Did build those roads myself? Do I own the people injured in the collisions I created? I have no god-given right to the things I do. The fact that I was ever able to ride a motorcycle at all is a fucking miracle. Where do you get this sense of self entitlement?

 

 

 

And I'm not responding to your democrats vs republicans bs because I'm not a democrat or a republican. Take your dumb beef up with someone who cares what side of the same coin is better.

[angelofdeath]

What does that mean, own your own body? I guess I own my own body, but what's stopping a horde of barbarians from skinning me? Nothing, if I'm alone. What's protecting that same horde of barbarians from skinning each other? The laws of the tribe. Get it? Owning your own body is just free will. Rights are given to you by the society you're attempting to alienate yourself from.

 

no one is trying to 'alienate themselves from society.' society and a government are not the same thing. a government is a coercive body with a legal monopoly on force that rules over a tax jurisdiction.

you think a law written on a piece of paper is stopping a barbarian horde? really? why does only a govt law stop this horde, why cant private defense handle this? can i carry a side arm in 'your society' in order to defend myself or do i need to carry a police in my pick up truck bed? if i was really concerned about a barbarian horde, i would situate my life to where this horde would suffer more loss than i was worth. one doesnt need a government to protect them. in fact, govt has stacked up 260 million corpses as their victims in the 20th century alone, in non military action. if anything, this 'society' (government) you speak of is the body people have to be worried about.

 

you are fundamentally confusing a natural right with services provided that protects natural rights. natural rights cannot be taken away. even if you are enslaved, you have the right to be free. just so happens someone is infringing on your rights. which is why we have self defense. one must be prepared to defend themselves just like they must be prepared to fix an automobile if it breaks. are you going to suggest we need a government to provide auto services as well? did this 'society' just grant you the right to repair a car?

 

you still have not chosen to answer whether your 'society' will be voluntary or not. whether everyone is subject to the rule of this majority even if they choose to not partake. why wont you answer this? does it paint your democracy in a bad light and expose the gun and the force behind your ideology? i can full well live in society, trade peaceably with others, help people, live my life and otherwise interact voluntarily. you dont need to submit to a coercive monopoly on force to be part of 'society.'

 

if you do not believe that chattel slaves have a fundamental right to be free because the 'society' they are 'living' in says they should be enslaved, i just dont know what to say.

[Soup]

This is one area I resent progressives for getting it so incredibly wrong. By presenting their wish-list of goodies they want the government to give people as 'rights', they have confused and discredited entire concept. Rights are an intrinsic part of humanity, not a normative proscription for the operation of governments. A right that is in violation by default is not a right.

 

What do you think humanity is? It's another word civilization. What do you think government is? It's another word for law and order. What do you think rights are? Litigation. What you're suggesting is that there is a god giving rights to all humans. There is no god, or at least no god who cares that much about humans. There is no form of ethical conduct imbued into mankind at birth. Coexistance is a learned behavior.

[Soup]

Trolling.

[Soup]

Ok see how far you get with that knocking around in your head. You apparently have no value for what I'm saying, so live by your word. If what everyone else is saying is so disagreeable you and AOD can go start your own forum and think whatever you want. Nobody here is buying this no government/anarchy scenario.

[angelofdeath]