Advice to the Occupy movement

This is not going to be an attack on the Occupy movement. People are frustrated and upset - justifiably so.

However, it is my observation that the OWS crowd is very diverse, and often comprised of members with mutually exclusive goals. It is also an observation of mine that few really seem to have a due respect for the concept of government. For example - many people want to address issues at the National level, essentially ignoring the State government (let alone cities and counties); and on top of that, one part of the crowd wants national healthcare and government-insured housing while another crowd wants lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. Those goals are mutually exclusive - and cannot both be satisfied by actions taken by the National government.

To this effect, OWS needs to come to understand and respect the way the Constitution was drafted. States were intended to be the most powerful while having the most freedom of legislative action. This was because, at the time, many states had substantially different ways of doing things (even today, the life and concerns of Nevada are considerably different from the life and concerns of New York). The National government was the overseeing authority for States and applying only as much legislative action as necessary to preserve the status of the Union.

This is an important concept to understand, as - with the National government functioning the way it was designed - violence (as it has been discussed lately) is completely unnecessary, as is the concept of 'forcing' change on a governmental entity.

Let me explain - under a system where the States hold most of the power and authority, people who are not in favor of that system of government can attempt to vote and change it, and being unsuccessful at that, can declare their own independence and apply to be an independent state. This example already exists with West Virginia (although this division occurred over issues involving Virginia's secession and joining the confederacy - the example still applies).

From here, I will begin to get more direct and to the point.

There are a lot of people, myself included, who do not want to live in a society where the government is expected to take care of us. I don't want the concept of a "living wage" to be insured by government. I, simply, do not see it as a government responsibility.

There are many in the OWS crowd who do.

We are at an impasse, as the two groups will never agree... and, contrary to what the OWS crowd tends to tell itself, it is not only 1% that disagrees with them.

To this - the Constitution already has an answer: Statehood. You do not have to live my way, and I do not have to live yours - so long as we can agree that our separate ways of life can cooperate under a federated union. I don't mind if you want to live under a nanny state - I just don't want to be forced to live under it; and I have no desire to force you under a free market, minimal-government way of life, either. Just so long as we can both respect that it is our right to establish our own forms of governing and living.

That respect must be expressed through the National government - which must grant states and individuals the freedom to self-govern (with some constraints).

Which brings me around to a rather direct suggestion to OWS.

Camping and demonstrating in the middle of parks to try and change laws to suit your needs is not the way our system of government is supposed to work. Do not be surprised when it does not lead to changes in the way government works. Also, do not be surprised if you encounter far more resistance to accomplishing certain goals than you expect.

It would be a more productive use of OWS resources to, instead, begin setting up areas and petitioning to have them declared separate governmental/financial entities. This could take many forms - from something like a reservation to independent statehood - or even complete secession from the Union (even if it is a relatively small area and population).

That - I, and many others, can support without having to compare concepts of government. No one has to feel threatened by an unwelcome change, and violence is not necessary to achieve the goal of change for those who seek it.

That is what this country was founded on - the principle of self-governance and the idea that people had the right to branch off and handle their own affairs. And, honestly, that is my advice to the OWS crowd, rather than talks of violence and clashes with police forces.

"But, Aim - you are kind of forgetting what happened when the South tried that."

This is where we can really begin to draw lines in the sand. Like I said - I do not want to live under a nanny state, and will be prone to violence against those trying to force it upon me.

However, if you were to be in a state that seceded from the Union - I (and many others) would defend your right to self-govern. There are many in the military who hold this view, and the Militias exist almost exclusively for that purpose. I may be sad to see you leave the union - but it is your right to do so.

Is this making sense to everyone - or am I speaking nonsense?

States were intended to be the supreme power but...
We all know what happens to the best of intentions.
The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia legalizes medicinal (hmmm due to ATS censorship I will say medicine), the feds come in and shut down the shop.
So, how is your idea of state supreme law doing now?
Nope, not gonna work, we need to hit the fed ggumment to change anything as they are waaaaaay too powerful at the moment.
Heck, they could even suspend your rights or kill you if they said it was for state security.

reply to post by Aim64C

I agree with you 100% right up to one point. I happen to be pretty far on the conservative side. However, I appreciate the nearly 50% of the nation is left of dead center. Our past few Presidential elections have shown that as clearly as can be. So why would they have to secede?

It seems to me that going by your logic, if the 10th amendment were to be honored and respected to the full extent it was written to be, the 'free thinkers' could dominate and define a state like California yet not effect a state like Montana or Missouri.

It's the whole federal domain concept I think the right and the left could...if we all tried a bit....challenge together, to change together. Right afterward, we can all go back to disliking each other, really.

Great post for things to consider though....and something does have to change. Everyone seems to agree on that anyway.

reply to post by Aim64C


You make plenty of great points in your OP. However, the core group behind these occupy camps are guided by a totally different and abstract set of rules than how conventional logic and wisdom would typically guide an organized group.

The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.

Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises

Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

No one in these movements have any interest in actually addressing their concerns for the following reason.

The first step in community organization is community disorganization

Saul Alinsky

They have not reached their goal of total disorganization yet.

The Alinsky plans is being played out right before our eyes. I suggest everyone grab a copy of this book to use as a reference tool and a checklist as the days wear on.

Two months and ZERO results from these occupations. No open dialogue, No press conferences, No Solutions...Just internal daily meetings to plot a strategy for the next 4 hours of sitting. They DO NOT want the same results that a rational human would typically be striving for. They want COLLAPSE and CHAOS. That's why I cannot relate to this movement in any way.

reply to post by Aim64C


lovely post Aim64C - and I say that sincerely

and, bonus! no bloodshed - nobody has to die :-)

I believe in the system - and I agree with you - mostly

but this country has lived with certain assumptions for quite some time - and for the most part accepted that things would take care of themselves like a self-cleaning oven - just as long as they voted and paid their taxes

but what if this isn't about the Federal or the State governments operating in business as usual mode - what if this is more about the possibility of collusion?

I can't speak for all the protesters - any more than you can speak for every member of any one group - but I would be willing to bet that none of the protesters are interested in starting a really, really big commune on some godforsaken piece of land that nobody else wants and calling it 'The Great State of Love and Rainbows'

those in disagreement with this entire movement aren't looking as hard at the crowd involved as they should

protesting in the streets and camping out seems radical to you - because it is. It rubs people the wrong way, but for a reason

I use the word collusion - it makes me sound all conspiracy-theorist and everything - yes, I know :-)

but I'm interested in your honest thinking here - is there never a right time - or place - for working outside the system?

what if the machinery of democracy is on the fritz?

it would be a shame if we counted on our system to run smoothly - nothing should ever be taken for granted - and if you can affect change through peaceful, albeit radical means - why not?

examine the crowd more closely is all I'm saying - you'll find what you're looking for to be sure - and then some. But - the backbone of this thing is people who think pretty much the way you do - just going at it from a different angle...

and Aim64C - keep the faith baby

:-)

reply to post by jibeho


not that I expect any warm, fuzzy feelings for labor or unions in this thread, but...it's not radicalism for no good reason - it's not anarchy, it's not an attempt to overthrow the government

it's a movement for change

The similarities to Occupy Wall Street are striking. The sources of the two movements are almost the exact same: People feel the economy is no longer working for them. They see the effects cheap wages and expensive needs. They are frustrated with corporate and governmental irresponsibility. They believe that the country is not on a sustainable track and something significant must change. And the activity in each movement is also similar: Rallies are spreading across the country. Some are resulting in violence. Protestors don't have a concise policy platform or message that they're pushing. It's a messy social movement, once again.

But, if history is any indication, this disorganized inception might be the path necessary to create real, lasting, change. Certainly some Occupy Wall Street protesters are out there solely because they're unemployed and looking for work. But some of them are seeking something bigger, something more substantial: a change in the way we run our economy and treat our citizens. For the Eight-Hour Day Movement, that change was the Fair Labor Standards Act. It remains to be seen what becomes the policy cause of Occupy Wall Street.

www.theatlantic.com... s_picks=true

any links to the bits you posted? I'm interested in the rest...

reply to post by g146541

So, how is your idea of state supreme law doing now?
Nope, not gonna work, we need to hit the fed ggumment to change anything as they are waaaaaay too powerful at the moment.

I have actually begun drafting a 'new' Constitution. Basically - it's the original Constitution with more strong wording and makes the National government far more accountable to State governments.

One of the key concepts within it would be that there is no interpretation of law at the National level - if it is not explicitly stated as being an authority of the National government - it's not going to fly (I would like to rig it so that Washington sits atop a 5.8 teraton fusion warhead, and any bills considered legal must be passed through a scanner slaved to a computer with a text interpreter. If a bill is -ever- passed that strays outside the limits set by the Constitution - said nuclear warhead eliminates the entire eastern seaboard and ninjas exterminate any representatives that cleared the blast radius . . . but I also like being somewhat melodramatic).

The only governments that should have the authority to interpret are States. Which means the National supreme court should be replaced by a computer and armies of robots to enforce its rulings (again... I like being melodramatic... but -someone- is going to have to be willing to hold the government accountable).

*Note: if you are not laughing at my suggestions for fail-safes against expanding government - then you're taking me a bit too seriously... or just don't find me amusing.

Heck, they could even suspend your rights or kill you if they said it was for state security.

One must riddle, then, why it is OWS leaders have not been targeted for such tactics?

While it is the popular anecdote to declare the movement leaderless - there are several key individuals who serve as vital contact and logistical nodes. Modern anti-terror tactics involves the identification and nullification of these 'nodes' to collapse an organization. 'We' train to do this in countries with somewhat alien cultures and languages that are very difficult to get 'from the ground' information - and successfully pull it off. Protesters in major cities don't stand a chance against those tactics, to be honest.

So - I think you are over-estimating the reach of the National government.

You'll find little love of protesters in the military - but you will find even less love for Congress (. . . and our current Commander In Chief . . .). Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines tend to be quite appreciative of the support they receive from the American people - I will have food bought for me by people who want to show their appreciation - despite the fact I'm on per-diem (I even try and tell some people this - but they just want to personally see that one of their Sailors is being taken care of). And you know the old saying - the quickest way to a man's heart is through his stomach...

Push comes to shove - you're not going to find too many willing to enforce draconian styles of government. We aren't brain-dead. There are obviously bad people in our society with evidence against them being allowed to continue about freely. Some anarchist or marxist is going to be far more difficult to find people willing to shut him down just for shouting gibberish.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I agree with you 100% right up to one point. I happen to be pretty far on the conservative side. However, I appreciate the nearly 50% of the nation is left of dead center. Our past few Presidential elections have shown that as clearly as can be. So why would they have to secede?

I am addressing cases of extreme - which tend to be the modus operandi of ATS members (take an average concern and turn it into the most extreme form of it you can come up with). This is also a method for dealing with conflicts within states - to secede from that state and apply to be a separate state.

Even here in Missouri - there is a considerable divide between the more rural and urban parts of the State. Agricultural communities often have to put up with regulations and laws that are largely established by city-folk that have only seen pastures on TV. A recent case of this was legislation regarding "puppy mills" - that did nothing but arbitrarily restrict the number of animals, rather than address the cause for concern over "puppy mills" (poor sanitary conditions, over-bred females, cramped facilities, poor nutrition, etc). Of course - it's the unlicensed breeders who tend to be the culprits.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Even through the obvious bias of the article - you can see the way lifestyle differences cause legislative tension.

Great post S+F!

OWS should seek legal avenues to get what they want. How ever their general disregard for law is what concerns me. Now that said, there are groups within OWS that want socialism and communism, so to the few who acknowledge that they seek socialism/communism, my question to them is why don't they just leave to a communist country if they are so fed up with capitalism.

For those who don't why don't you seek a legal way to seek the changes you wish to see and apply for statehood? I guess the only question is where would your state be? Considering that it may be property of a state, that could lead to conflict. However, if this element truly hates America so much then why not let them try to set out on their own and I would support that effort. I would not to live within your state and I believe your state would fail miserably. However if that could serve as a solution, then so be it. I would like to see them try though, I say go for it.

reply to post by Aim64C


I thought it was fair and balanced.

However there are many OWS supporters here who have been blatantly advocating tossing everything out and starting from scratch.

That simply will not do IMHO.