A Global Manifesto as crafted by Occupy++

[Flying Pig]

An awful lot of this just smacks of 'yes, we'd all love that, dear, but how do you intend to pay for it?'

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm a pretty big believer in the old slogan that you have to be "realistic- demand the impossible", and I think that the demands have some merit within those terms. If the majority or even a simple plurality gets behind them- and let's not ague about whether they're "reasonable" or not, because the world has never functioned according to that sort of naive corporatism- then the failure or refusal of the powers that be to address them shifts the political terrain pretty significantly. The problem, if anything, is that they are too conservative, that the authors seem to believe that there's actually a hope in the hell that these demands might be fulfilled, that the existing political and economic structure is in fact capable of responding to them. That just invites the sort of quibbling that we've seen in this thread, as if the point of the OWS was actually to produce a series of centre-left policy goals rather than to deliver a punch squarely to the jaw of the hegemonic politics itself. At the risk of leaving a few more posters furiously uncomprehending than may be considered polite, we shouldn't make these demands because we think the system can meet them, but because we know it can't.

In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran.

Who gets to decide which states are "free", and which are "oppressive", I wonder?

 

[Flying Pig]

Who gets to decide which states are "free", and which are "oppressive", I wonder?

If the things being shouted are the will of the people, the government is by definition oppressive.

 

[Traitorfish]

What is "the people", and how does it formulate a coherent "will"?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

They "demand" it? Its one thing to demand another to get. Also this is a manifesto? Shouldn't it be a bit longer.

 

[innonimatu]

It's inappropriate, and in fact dangerous to human freedom, for the Occupy movement to be listing "demands". Doesn't matter what those demands are, and in fact I didn't even bother to read the links. The links are unimportant. In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran. In free nations, political change MUST BE the sole prerogative of voters cloaked in the anonymous safety of the voting booth--where the demonstrators can't scare the voters or take revenge on people who vote "the wrong way".

That is a really, really pathetic statement. What are political campaigns and party agendas but lists of "unilateral demands"? What is any political activity but lists of demands - which may or may not go through, obviously?

And what would voting mean if you would censor any political speech? Because that's what you are calling for here. Do you really think that the people reading your drivel are stupid enough to fall for it? And your insinuations that this "occupy movement" is able to coerce anyone through force... every single instance of violence I've seen in the last months has been directed against them. But that doesn't worry you the least bit, does it?

Moderator Action: "Do you really think that the people reading your drivel are stupid enough to fall for it? " is over the top, please be civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Protip: People are actually too dumb for this to be a good idea.

So dumb that all the flaws of solely focusing on representation become irrelevant? How exactly did you reach this conclusion? Especially if we consider the vast myriads of ways representation sucks and the negligible experience we had the chance to collect with direct democracy? Ah I see, you don't have any actual coherent reasoning, but I understand how cool it is to have yourself appear aware of the dumbness of the masses and it is a trendy argument to make against direct democracy. Especially in the USA, where arguments seem to be all about fashion, especially with the masses.
I wonder if someone is as dumb as you (but still seems to think to be some sort of "pro") - can he really judge the bearability of dumbness involved in direct democracy?

I feel better now.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Sorry that I made you so angry.

Look, I was being cutesy when I put it that way. There are, however, really good objections to direct democracy.

Perhaps the biggest danger, to my mind, is the tyranny of the majority. It's the two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner problem. The temptation to simply trample unpopular minorities is too strong, and I do think it weakens constitutional protections when we go too far in this direction.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you have any objections to direct democracy that don't amount to gut-instinct and misanthropy? Nothing in the above post suggests that you do.

 

[kramerfan86]

Tyranny by majority is a serious threat without constitutional protections, he is correct (simply look at gay marriage votes). People voting away their rights in a panic when something bad happens is also a threat. Direct democracy with constitutional protections would be more reasonable.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Do you have any objections to direct democracy that don't amount to gut-instinct and misanthropy? Nothing in the above post suggests that you do.

You must have responded to my pre-edit post. Sorry about that.

Yeah. They're pretty simple objections and you might not agree, but I do.

I fear the power it would give to all sorts of unpleasant demagogues during times of crises. Corruptible or not, I'd rather have some older, calmer hands at the switch.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't understand the alleged relationship between direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority". Would it be possible to explain to it me, preferably with minimum references to your contempt for the swinish multitude?

 

[Flying Pig]

Put bluntly, if you ask 'the people' to make all of their own decisions, they make some horrifically stupid ones. Politicians in general are better at making decisions than the average voter, which is why representative democracy tends to get a better outcome.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I don't understand the alleged relationship between direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority". Would it be possible to explain to it me, preferably with minimum references to your contempt for the swinish multitude?

I was going to use a hypothetical example, but I Googled and found a more concrete one.

Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.

Basically, panicked property owners grieved by something called the Rumford Fair Housing Act wanted to amend the California state constitution to allow them to discriminate against non-whites. I have an absolute belief that gay marriage is a right and consider Proposition 8 to be a similar example.

This was just a quick Wikipedia dive, but take it for what it's worth.

EDIT: Linky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(1963)

 

[kramerfan86]

I don't understand the alleged relationship between direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority". Would it be possible to explain to it me, preferably with minimum references to your contempt for the swinish multitude?

Politicians are a buffer zone that sort of cools down the primal emotion of the voter before it becomes law. Imagine right after 9/11 when people were terrified and angry what sort of direct votes we would have had on muslims.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Politicians are a buffer zone that sort of cools down the primal emotion of the voter before it becomes law. Imagine right after 9/11 when people were terrified and angry what sort of direct votes we would have had on muslims.

I commend your irony, sir.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'd rather not turn the Republic into an unmixed "best demagogue 2012" contest. What we have now is certainly flawed, but I don't think going from bad to worse will fix it.

 

[kramerfan86]

I commend your irony, sir.

Politicians are crap, but they are a buffer zone. As bad as some of the post 9/11 laws were it would have been even worse if panicked average citizens were voting on things.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Politicians are crap, but they are a buffer zone. As bad as some of the post 9/11 laws were it would have been even worse if panicked average citizens were voting on things.

This may not be true, but I would be very surprised if it wasn't.

 

[kramerfan86]

As bad as things got, we never passed any laws discriminating against muslims. Did horrible things like the Patriot act and the Iraq war, but muslims were never legally reduced to 2nd class citizens. I honestly believe that had people been allowed to directly vote while everyone was in a panic, there would have at least been officially legalized profiling and possibly even worse things. I also think the Patriot act would have been even more frighting in terms of the government powers it handed out.

Speculation of course, i dont actually KNOW any of these things.