OWS? Tea Party? What's in a name?

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by beezzer

 

Which principles do you feel need to be compromised? Ultimately the principles are the thing.

Do both groups agree on the problems they see, or are they disagreeing with each other on different problems altogether?

Ethics is a fair starting point; however, ethics requires clarifications that will bring it down to earth.

Too bad most people are conditioned to assume they are unqualified and ill-suited to discuss such things.

The nature of our society is at a crossroads.... soon it will not be "our" society at all... it will be a control construct with invisible hands pulling the strings.... or are we there yet?

If we can still openly question our society, then we're not there yet.

What values, what principles are you willing to lose?
I like the US Constitution. Do we take a Sharpie to it and cross out what the other side doesn't like until we come to an agreement?

I think this will be much harder than anyone realises.

Op, I see what you are getting at. Both sides have almost the exact same goal, but each has their own opinion of what method should be used to achieve that goal.

I agree with you! Let's put aside the rhetoric of "socialist Obama-lovers" or "racist tea-bagging rednecks" and work towards the goal.

I am down for that. I play well with others, look forward to changing the system and have no problem with compromise.

Great reality check op!

reply to post by beezzer


If you'll bear with me, I think I know where the problems actually began.... and it all centers around the Constitution.

I hold well with Constitutionalism. I believe that the intent and the execution have - for lack of a better way of putting it - met with 'interference.'

It took tremendous effort to overcome what happened to the constitution in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

While the eventual outcome remains hopeful, more and more effort seem to be in place to keep the constitution from being center stage in American politics - where it truly belongs. Yet most of our missteps can be traced back to a tendency for all political agendas to focus on "getting around it" or at least "getting away with it." "It" being whatever goal the citizen politician has chosen.

My first effort in the quest to reach the proper starting posture for the task of agreeing is to identify precisely how we define the problems we face.

This is problematic. Some must be "told" what problems we face. Some must have the problems they see "interpreted" for them. In fact, there are a great many of our fellow citizens who believe that they have no place trying to understand it all... that's what they have representatives for... so they have been told.

And who is it that defines these problems for us? Obviously it is not us. The reason it is not us is because the politicians and technocrats insist their scope and breadth of vision makes them exclusively qualified to monopolize the dialog... if there is a dialog allowed at all (most true problems are hidden and remain so.)

If you and other interested members will agree to cooperate, can we even broach this simple question?

What IS the problem? How do we define it?

No diatribes about the empty suits who took responsibility for actions, no hyperbole and demagoguery about "notional" 'groups' of people and their agendas couched in populist rhetoric. Where does the prime issue come forth?

Can we say it is "inequality?" Or will there be troubled entrails over the fear of the connotation others insert into that question? If we say things like "liberty" or "posterity" or "the common good" will it fall under the oppressive shadow of double entendre, or newspeak?

Do we trust the talking heads to couch our reality for us?

The first step in avoiding a trap is knowing of it's existence.... do we know what the trap is?

I believe that there have been many patriots and political thinkers in our age who knew exactly what we would be facing if we followed the path we have taken.... most were despised by their adversaries who wanted to "get around it" or "get away with it."

I suggest the first question is this: Do we accept that the ideal government must derive it's power from the consent of the governed?

Therein I find the beginning of the quest.

Our Constitution answered that question rather well I think.

I suspect that the answer will inevitably be common to both the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

I also suspect that the answer is not to the liking of some extraordinarily powerful and influential people... are any of you out there? We would probably enjoy hearing your stance on that question, and how you qualify, vacillate, expound upon that very simple principle.

reply to post by Maxmars

I suggest the first question is this: Do we accept that the ideal government must derive it's power from the consent of the governed?

All governments, ideal or not, derive their power from the consent of the governed. This was true of Alexander's brief empire, true of the Roman Empire, true of Attila the Hun's reign, true of The Soviet Union's reign, Hitler's reign, the Khmer Rouge's reign, and most assuredly true of the reign of the U.S. federal government.

I must say, my friend, that when you say; "No diatribes about the empty suits who took responsibility for actions..." and in light of your entire post that boldly asks what is the problem just a few short sentences later, I have to wonder how you believe any problems at all will get fixed. Certainly, as I read and re-read that section, doing my best to determine just what you mean by that, each time I read a dismissal of taking responsibility for ones actions in it.

The problems will not get fixed if we cannot, or just simply refuse to accept responsibility, not just for our own actions, but for more. If we are not willing to act heroically, then we have no real reasonable right of expectation to be seen as heroes. If we are not heroes then what are we?

I believe you do correctly point out a big part of the problem, which lies in the continuing end runs around Constitutional restraints, but those end runs have largely happened through the willing and all too compliant acquiescence to unconstitutionalism at its most egregious. We the People have for far too long agreed to surrender our rights, and if we do not figure out how to accept responsibility for this most imprudent strategy of expedience and going along to get along, then the end runs and gleeful unconstitutionalism will just continue.

Accepting responsibility for ones own action is hard work! What I argue is we have to do more than that and accept responsibility for responsibility that is not being accepted, and if accepting responsibility for ones actions is hard work, imagine the work we really have ahead of ourselves. This is not just empty rhetoric. Oye Como Va!

I make no pretense of always communicating clearly, and you've raised a point that merits the scrutiny you evoked.

It is not really my intention to preclude 'responsibility' from the conversation as much as it was to isolate the blame form the problem.

What tends to distract me is the segue of "but the Democrats did this" or "the Republicans did that" (or failed to do this or that). which leads to the partisan tomfoolery which leads nearly every conversation astray... for the most part based on public relations techniques and marketing tactics one uses to promote 'celebrity' and imagery which has no relationship to character, intent, or capability.

It's funny (to me) though that it should come off as me not wanting to address or attribute bad actions, decision, or concepts. I have no desire to skirt the reckoning that must come from the elimination of ignorance, benign or otherwise.

I expect that anyone can justify the rationale behind the promotion of one theory of governance over another. However, the question of the "mandate from the masses" comment is more towards the argument of the constitution that such a mandate must actually be effectively carried out by the masses themselves. We have entered an era where self-governance is in peril, and suffering from what some more conspiracy minded folks perceive as ideologically warped mis-characterizations.

Often it appears to me, and I may be wrong, that personal sovereignty is literally at stake here.

The idea of consent of the governed carries with it the explicit implication that the executors of the governance are in fact not only "of" the body of "We the People;" but that they are equally subject to, and affected by, the governance they bring to bear. The contemporary perception increasingly departs from that paradigm.

If we say that we can support the sentiment of "consent of the governed" then I must ask, how is that consent established? How is it affirmed? I fear that we are often too receptive of those who spend their days developing characterization strategies and sales techniques to 'forge' consent; as opposed to informing the governed that they may effectively decide what it is they are consenting to.

It is not necessary to point out the inevitability that not all the people can be 'well-informed' - simply because it is a complex set of decisions that require attention and people must be free to live their lives.

On the other hand, what I believe I see, is the separation of the people from the facts to 'purposefully' render them incapable of ever being "informed" beyond what the key players want the people to believe is true.

Too many closed doors, confidential matters, and deliberations that affect us all, yet, we only get to see the result.. not the process... and we have to accept that the process was proper... from people who clearly benefit from our ignorance.

SO how does the consent of the governed exist when the governed don;t have a clue what is really happening to their nation,.what it's doing, who it is supporting and opposing, and what it's agenda is beyond the pleasantries presented by those who market ideas as they would products to consumers?

In that light, your list of other nations who consent to be governed as they are (or were) stands suspect.

What can we do to guarantee we do not become mere serfs, pawns, or units of productivity for a regime which has no real desire to do anything but persist in its position of control?

reply to post by Maxmars

What can we do to guarantee we do not become mere serfs, pawns, or units of productivity for a regime which has no real desire to do anything but persist in its position of control?

We can opt out of the system. We can respectfully decline to acquiesce to tyranny and to, when necessary, assert our natural and unalienable rights and trust and hold faith that the Constitutional republic established is not so far gone that such assertions ring hallow.

I have, when it became necessary for me to do so, exerted and asserted my unalienable rights, and a few times these rights were ignored long enough to issue me some citation that compelled me to go to court, but once there the challenges of jurisdiction and a reasonable knowledge of the law was all that was necessary to have the charges against me dropped for want of subject matter jurisdiction. At other times, the LEO's attempting to convince me that I am somehow subject to their silly and inexplicable ordinances have to presence of mind to listen to me and hear my earnest challenge of jurisdiction. Of course, it never hurts to offer these LEO's a way to save face, so it is prudent when explaining to a police officer that they have no jurisdiction and that if they act as they are threatening to do they will act criminally, to follow up by pointing out that police do have the power of discretion and they can decide not to issue a citation just as easily as they can decide to do so. Usually LEO's recognize this opportunity to save face and snatch it up and exercise their power of discretion.

It is imperative that we all come to know the law in ways that we can, as individuals, reassert our inherent political power and remind these government ideologues who it is they work for. It has to be done on an individual level to begin with or any movement will be useless. If individuals begin asserting their rights, jealously guarding these rights, and zealously defending them without regard for who else is doing this, I assure you a wholly organic movement will appear as a groundswell of authority and power that no organized standing military could withstand, because this groundswell would not be rooted in violent rebellion but instead the velvet revolution of respectfully declining to acquiesce to tyranny.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

We can opt out of the system. We can respectfully decline to acquiesce to tyranny and to, when necessary, assert our natural and unalienable rights and trust and hold faith that the Constitutional republic established is not so far gone that such assertions ring hallow.

I am not under the impression that our citizens can confront inequity rationally and dispassionately in the face of the prevalent modalities of engagement with the government (for example, the prevalent LEO doctrine of "projection of control and power.") I find it somewhat unrealistic. But I may be a tad cynical about this.

It requires a certainty of character and strength of presence to accomplish what you describe at the individual level.

Presumably, you might expect anyone incapable of coping with that kind of situation could rightly be said to have abdicated their rights, so to speak. It is not my intention to put words in your mouth, so forgive me if it seems that way. My direction is the suspicion that our citizens are ill-suited to overcome the circumstance you describe.

Even knowing they are in the right, many would have great difficulties to adequately articulate a case - even less so under the pressure of the instance.

So we face a deficiency;

we have failed to prepare our citizens for the responsibility of citizenship,

- or -

we have adopted a policy and tenor of governance that demands a level of civic understanding our citizens do not wish required.

Is there a possibility of compromise?

Or are we saying that most of the citizens of this country failed somehow to be what a citizen should be?

reply to post by seagull


I am sorry but the tea parties are NOTHING like the OWS. The OWS consists of liberal thugs and brats who don't know the meaning of hard work. The tea parties are about liberty, freedom, it was the tea parties that stood up against the bail outs, against big government, against Obama, where were the OWS protestors all this time? Nowhere! I don't understand why there are so many people against this idea of going back to the 50's and early 60's, the 80's. a time of properity and freedom and liberty, a time of small government, a time of hard workers... if people were self aware, they'd clearly see a distinction between the tea parties and the OWSers

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I suggest the first question is this: Do we accept that the ideal government must derive it's power from the consent of the governed?

All governments, ideal or not, derive their power from the consent of the governed. This was true of......[snip list of examples].....and most assuredly true of the reign of the U.S. federal government.

Although it could be justifiably argued that it has changed over the years, The U.S. federal government was formed hundreds of years ago during a time when it took weeks, months, and even years to get information from point A to point B. Thus (in part) the existance of the government's senators and representatives was justified. Even entire battles were fought resulting in hundreds/thousands of casualties ... even after the war had ended, but the battlefield was not aware of it.

My point is it no longer takes weeks, months, and years to tranfer information from point A to point B. A bunch of people can sit in a room in Washington D.C. and watch multiple live feeds from cameras on helmets 7,049 miles (11,343 km) away with less than an 8 second delay.

It is obvious/apparent that a great deal of the U.S. federal government's self appointed job and responsibilities includes filtering this information, manipulating this information, and deciding for the people how this information is delivered and/or presented to the public, if at all.

Just sharing some thoughts.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

We can opt out of the system. We can respectfully decline to acquiesce to tyranny and to, when necessary, assert our natural and unalienable rights and trust and hold faith that the Constitutional republic established is not so far gone that such assertions ring hallow.

Unalienable rights, Americans?

Every law represents one less right, one less thing that it is legal to do. I must admit I feel rather alienated by my own society's expectations of me due to the fact It is very highly improbable I have any chance of living long enough to learn what all the laws, regulations, ordinances, statutes, etc.. that I am required to comply with and conform to here the "land of the free". Knowing the rules to the game is would make me feel less alienated, but unfortunately they are not required learning in schools. And, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Catch-22.

I don't believe any child born in America tomorrow has any chance of learning the mandatory expectations they must conform to and comply with in the span of their lifetime. I don't think any child born tomorrow in the U.S. has any chance of learning the number of laws that exist in the U.S. in their lifetime.

Let's sit a bunch of 2 year olds down to play monopoly and slap them in the face when they don't play by the rules. Maybe not a fair analogy, since children in warzones suffer much more than slaps in the face.

Law makers make laws.
Voters enable and pay for more law makers.
Voters don't know the laws.
Voters don't know the number of laws that currently exist (It's not like they are required learning in schools).
Do you honestly think any law maker knows all the laws word for word?

Solution? Hire more law makers to make more laws, I guess.

reply to post by Maxmars
Between you and JPZ, I feel like a 10 year old given the task to read and interpret Descartes!



But I'll try to keep up.

I think we could go a long way if we all agreed on the definition of what our rights are. Thier limits, their scope.

If we came to an understanding of what our rights are, and agreed to that, then I think much would fall into place.

Originally posted by ILikeStars

Although it could be justifiably argued that it has changed over the years, The U.S. federal government was formed hundreds of years ago during a time when it took weeks, months, and even years to get information from point A to point B. Thus (in part) the existance of the government's senators and representatives was justified. Even entire battles were fought resulting in hundreds/thousands of casualties ... even after the war had ended, but the battlefield was not aware of it.

My point is it no longer takes weeks, months, and years to tranfer information from point A to point B. A bunch of people can sit in a room in Washington D.C. and watch multiple live feeds from cameras on helmets 7,049 miles (11,343 km) away with less than an 8 second delay.

It is obvious/apparent that a great deal of the U.S. federal government's self appointed job and responsibilities includes filtering this information, manipulating this information, and deciding for the people how this information is delivered and/or presented to the public, if at all.

Just sharing some thoughts.

If I may; I have seen this line of reasoning before regarding the effective nature of our government (or ineffective, as the argument may go.)

It is unreasonable to expect a fixed and immutable construct of governance to be able to cope with unforeseeable developments, stresses and conditions. The framers knew this, and developed a Constitution based on a political philosophy that accounted for the need for a living - evolving - plan.

many people incorrectly assume that the talking heads we listen to are correct about the constitution regarding the potential that it is out of date, or somehow a hindrance to the people. I agree with Mr. Justice Sutherland's pronouncement in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish...

"... the meaning of the Constitution does not change with the ebb and flow of economic events. We are frequently told in more general words that the Constitution must be construed in the light of the present. If by that it is meant that the Constitution is made up of living words that apply to every new condition which they include, the statement is true.

But to say, if that be intended, that the words of the Constitution mean today what they did not mean when written - that is, that they do not apply to a situation now to which they would have applied then - is to rob that instrument of the essential element which continues it in force as the people have made it until they, and not their official agents have made it otherwise."

He continues further to reiterate the the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not some collection of moral reflections.

Those who deride the idea of adherence to the Constitution as an out of date idea are missing the entire point of the mandates it places on our government and the point of holding true to another Supreme justice's words (Davis):

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."

American principles do not waiver with the situation. Politicians may, as they may compromise and bargain, but the principles themselves are not a negotiable feature of governance, despite what our current cadre of political celebrities and their script-writers may say.

[more to follow]

It's a nice thought, and I tried this myself a couple of weeks ago. I wish it could be, but I can only continue to be nice to people that only throw hate back in return, for so long. The olive branch was extended here on ATS to TP supporters and we were rejected, similar to the movements themselves. The right and left media will continue to lie and slander both to their audience and both sides will continue to devour the hate like it was air and oxygen was going out of style. We are not ready to be truly united, we're not strong enough to resist propaganda. Sadly, not much of the change both are looking for will happen until we do.

Originally posted by Maxmars

If I may; ...

By all means Maxmars, by all means, yes you may. I have a fetish for words, and participating in intelligent conversations with people who have a firm grasp and understanding of the language, and how to wield it to express themselves, is one of the main reasons I find ATS to be a salubrious environment. I appreciate sharing thoughts with people capable of expressing themselves and presenting rational dialogue, and I have a reverence for it. So, by all means, yes, Maxmars, you may

I have seen this line of reasoning before regarding the effective nature of our government (or ineffective, as the argument may go.)

In my opinion one of the biggest problems with our current model (USA) of government is it's disconnect. It is unreasonable to expect people of being capable of making informed decisions if they are not permitted by law to be informed. Government and/or politically charged "main stream media" chooses what information is available, and how that information is to be presented and delivered to those whose opinion-makers they obviously must want to have an effect on.

The information available to the people is filtered, manipulated, augmented, and .. well: controlled.
In the U.S.A. I would consider Fox News to be main stream media due to the fact they have the highest ratings of all the news agencies being broadcast on tv. To be blunt: They lie a lot.

It is unreasonable to expect a fixed and immutable construct of governance to be able to cope with unforeseeable developments, stresses and conditions.

It is also unreasonable to expect people to be capable of coping with foreseeable developments, stresses and conditions when they are not legally permitted to have known information pertaining to the foreseeable developments. Again, it is also unreasonable to expect people to be capable of making informed decisions when they are denied the information required to make informed decisions. People must settle with making their decisions based upon the available information that they are presented with, which is controlled, filtered, etc.

I am not a proponent of anarchy. I hope I didn't come off that way. I was interjecting some talking points I think are worth consideration.

The technology exists that would permit every citizen to vote for themselves on every law proposed, as does the means to collect that information and tabulate it. Granted safety measures to ensure system integrity would have to be in place. Make the citizens responsible for choosing who we go to war with instead of corporations, and people behind closed doors. Something closer to a true democracy is now more of a plausible option than it has ever been in the history of humanity as we know it. Make the people accountable for their nations' decisions.

I'm not sure it is possible, but it is worth contemplating, I think.

Maxmars,
I'm going to allow myself some more time to ponder over some of the rest of the thoughts you shared.

Thanks.
_________________________________________________

Originally posted by Albert Einstein
"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

America,
Educate the people. Legally impaired is an IQ of 70 or less. Genius range is 140 and above. The population of America's average IQ is 98. 70 or 140. Which is 98 a lot closer to?

Originally posted by beezzer

I think we could go a long way if we all agreed on the definition of what our rights are. Thier limits, their scope.

If we came to an understanding of what our rights are, and agreed to that, then I think much would fall into place.

A right is a thing that is permitted.A law is one less thing that is permitted. One less right.


I don't know how many laws there in America, what they all are word for word, and what they all mean when held in context with eachother simultaneously. This makes me ignorant. But, in my defense, it's not like they are required learning in schools.

reply to post by ILikeStars

A right isn't something permitted it is a guarantee given to every single human on the planet. Some say, by "God". A "right" should never be something that can be manipulated, misinterpreted, or devalued to the point that a government, any government, can take away. Once we agree on "rights" then we have a better chance of truly defining what we have in common and can discuss commonalities.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ILikeStars

 

A right isn't something permitted it is a guarantee given to every single human on the planet.

If a right is not permitted, it is a guarantee given .... then who is giving these "rights"? Aren't law makers giving these "rights"?

Some say, by "God".

Do you mean Government Of Dollars GOD? Peoples' imagination fo what God is?

A "right" should never be something that can be manipulated, misinterpreted, or devalued to the point that a government, any government, can take away. Once we agree on "rights" then we have a better chance of truly defining what we have in common and can discuss commonalities.

But rights have been and are bing manipulated, misinterpreted, and devalued.

Freedom of Speech. But how many laws are there that govern televisions, radios, phones, and all mediums of communication?

Since the U.S. government made it law that we had the right to keep and bear arms there has been more than 20,000 laws limiting the right to keep and bear arms.

rights were the block of stone.
laws are the chizzle reshaping and shrinking the block.

reply to post by patriotheart


Fifties and sixties were a golden era? Really?

Ask a southern black man how golden that era was... Or a hispanic field worker... Or Rosie the Riveter, who was told to go home to the kitchen after she helped win a war against, here's some irony for you, tyranny. If the fifties were so great and wonderful, why then were there so many movements to grant more freedoms to certain segments of society?

The Civil Rights movement. Womens Lib. The various farm labor movements. The list is virtually endless. Even whites who had it undeniably better than most others could see the injustice that lurked under the shiny veneer of the fifties.

The sixties were when all that movement finally produced results. Changes in voting rights. Changes in the treatment of non white males was, in many ways codified for the first time.

Those people who worked for the changes necessary were vilified by folks just like you, using many of the exact same words... Lazy. Dirty. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Plus ce change. Plus ce mem chose. Amazing how things circle back, isn't it?

Not that I entirely agree with this video (because I do not), but it does have some points worth some consideration. It makes comparisons between the Tea party and OWS ... and some politically charged anti-Obama rhetoric...