Global Revolution!

[Birch]

not me.

[JustARandomPanda]

It is not necessarily the case that an unemployed person is lazy or has some other character flaw or work ethic defect that prevents him/her from getting a job.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2011-01-23-longterm-unemployed_N.htm

 

http://minnesotaindependent.com/60314/age-discrimination-plagues-the-long-term-unemployed

[joeblast]

It is not necessarily the case that an unemployed person is lazy or has some other character flaw or work ethic defect that prevents him/her from getting a job.

 

ok, now instead of lamenting the present situation, what precipitated it? its not quite on the scale of a 25 year smoker wondering why he has lung cancer, I'll give you that, but its not exactly a matter of a tornado victim either.

 

 

yeah...this about sums up the wall st protests...

 

 

I'm sure these protectors dont notice the hypocrisy

Edited October 8, 2011 by joeblast

[gendao]

Edited October 8, 2011 by vortex

[manitou]

What would the Sage say about all this?

[Taomeow]

What would the Sage say about all this?

 

She commented on the picture Joeblast posted. She said, Camera by Panasonic is no replacement for Spectacular View by Mother Nature, Cell Phone by Samsung is no replacement for Community Bonds by Mother Nature, Dye by Clariol is no replacement for Glow of Health by Mother Nature, and What Corporations Have Made Available As "Human Lifestyle" is no replacement for Real Food, Real Water, Real Air, Real Shelter, Real Safety, Real Freedom, Real Love. Corporations have made What THEY Give the only things available to Humans, and TOOK AWAY everything Human Life really means, they Own everything and Substitute everything. They substitute Their Products for Human Life. Everybody has access to Their Products ONLY, no one has access to Human Life because Corporations have Taken It Away By Force and maintain this status with Violence. And that's why Humans are Stuck with Corporate Products and Without Human Life, and that's why they can't quite Formulate their Demands because what they really want is OVERWHELMING, they want their Humanity Back. Instead of the cell phones. Even if they don't know it in the neocortex and can't put it into words because their Words have been taken away by corporations too and replaced by Commercial Jingles. They search their Mind and that's all they find. And it makes them feel like Shit even if they don't know Why, and they can't quite know Why because they don't have a non-corporate frame of reference, and they don't have it because it has been taken away by corporations since before their Birth.

 

That's what she told me anyway...

[manitou]

That sure resonates, Taomeow.

[JustARandomPanda]

No one is a practicing contract lawyer or student?

 

Sigh...

 

Fine.

 

Then I'll step up to the plate and offer what little I understand.

 

 

Let's take a look at one part of the Holy Trinity of the Small Government Conservatives (and some Libertarians) solution for a freerer society. Let's look at Contracts because contracts are supposedly superior in preserving freedom and justice.

 

I decided to do so. Beyond the Blogosphere and Social Media. I actually took classes in Contract Law and classes in Arbitration.

 

So what to do about disputes and 'enhance the realm of freedom' for the individual/companies without Gov interference?

 

Small Gov Conservatives and most Libertarians proudly point to Contracts. This can solve many of the problems we see in society today.

 

Contract Law is one of the most ancient branches of law in existence. There are laws on the books in the U.S. that reach back to the days of the Roman Empire.

 

When you exchange money you are actually in a contractual situation. I am making an Offer and you can either accept or reject. Therefore most transactions fall under Contract Law. To qualify as a valid contract it must fulfill certain conditions.

 

My prof was a partner of one of the most successful contract law firms in the country. His firm has many famous multinational corporations as clients. Names you would recognize. Proctor and Gamble, Alcoa, Most Hollywood studios, etc.

 

He also happened to be an old, grizzled Ex-Marine from the Vietnam era. Therefore when he taught Contract Law he often taught it using military analogies and terminology (on the side we also got an excellent introduction to military strategies/tactics when engaging in battles!).

 

He regularly advises corporate Boards on strategies or tactics they are considering implementing that will fall under Contract Law.

 

Here is just one real life on-the-books example of what one of his own hugely multinational clients did. Turns out they were considering entering into a contract with another equally huge multinational. However, they'd done some calculations, preliminary research, etc and immediately saw that it would be quite advantageous to breech the contract. Mind you this was BEFORE they had engaged in Day 1 of any contract negotiations at all with the other multinational corporation.

 

He sat in that boardroom and watched as all Board members agreed to knowingly and willingly deceive this other multinational corporation. They strategized exactly as to how they were going to do this. It was just simply way too profitable - even after factoring in all the court costs, legal fees, time, etc - not to do it.

 

So that's what they proceeded to do. They knew they were going to be sued. They knew they were going to lose (and they did). But in the end it didn't matter - they made out like bandits anyway by breeching the contract. Contract Law breeches do not permit punitive damages to discourage this kind of blatantly immoral and unethical behavior like Tort does.

 

The costs imposed for breech of contract that our 1000+ year old Contract Law allows are very low (for reasons which would take a textbook chapter to explain but just trust me it's got the force of hundreds of years of history of interpreting things this way).

 

OK. I'll give just one example. Opportunity Cost is a principle familiar to everyone from Economics 101. The true cost of doing something or buying something is not just what I pay for it. It's true cost includes what I had to give up - what else did I forgo that I otherwise could have had if I'd not gone with the thing I bought?

 

Contract Law does not permit this kind of calculation when it's deciding between aggrieved parties. It is simply not permitted. Economists have to account for this but Contract Law can not. This has the force of 100s of years of stare decisis ("let the decision stand") case law behind it.

 

 

Another example of one of his clients/court cases he regaled us with:

 

There was an author with a small press publisher who happened to have his book turned into a movie. Naturally he and his small press publisher wanted to give the hardcover a certain period of time (especially around the time of the movie release) to be on the shelves by itself. Hardcovers are more profitable than paperbacks. And this small publishing company was very dependent on the sales this hardback would generate. A large publishing corporation entered into a contract with the author and his small publisher. It was agreed in writing that the large publisher would wait 8 months after the movie was gone from the theaters before they could issue a paperback of his novel.

 

Within 3 weeks of the movie's release the big publisher rushed the paperback to the shelves. They made well over $350,000 on the paperback sales. Naturally the hardcover sales that the tiny publisher and author were depending upon did not materialize. They sued the large publisher for breech of contract. The author pointed out how he had been hurt financially because he and his small publisher lost all those hardcover sales that otherwise would have happened.

 

Now remember what I said about Contract Law earlier? Contract Law for 100s of years has not been allowed to take lost revenues into account when deciding cases (there may be some rare exceptions to this but if so we never discussed them in class). The result is that - due to other reasons - the court did find in favor of the Plaintiffs - the author/publisher and awarded him actual damages. You know how much he got from what Contract Law is permitted to calculate in awarding damages?

 

$17,000.

 

Yes, that's all he got. So the big publisher lost $17,000 but they made over $350,000 in return. Not a bad Return-on-Investment for breeching a contract. It made total economic sense to do this. In fact, from a MACROECONOMIC sense it made sense to do this. This is only one small example of what Contract Law allows.

 

Here's another one. This one is recent. 2006. State of Texas. I know because I had to give this presentation to the class.

 

A young man with his young family took a week long vacation. When he got home, to his shock he discovered his old house had a fresh coat of paint. He didn't know what to make of it but didn't give it much further thought. Turns out a Paint Contractor's crew mistakenly painted the wrong house. The house they were supposed to paint was several houses down. Ok. Well it's a screw up. Sometimes stuff like this happens.

 

Then he got a notice in the mail from the Paint contractor stating he owed $15000 for the paint job.

 

Now he was steaming mad. He stated it was the crews fuck up, he wasn't responsible for paying for something he'd never ordered.

 

He got another notice in the mail stating he was being sued. A service had been delivered and he was refusing to pay.

 

He had to go to court to defend himself. It took about 4.5 years to wind it's way through the court system and meanwhile he's paying lawyer fees through the nose. Money that could have been used to fund his retirement, his children's college education, etc, invest in real estate or a start up business instead had to go toward paying law firm fees and court costs. He also argued that he could not afford to pay this $15000. He would be forced to take out a loan if he had to pay for someone else's screw up.

 

This case fell under Contract Law. Going by our history of Contract law one of the things the court had to look at whether he had been damaged by having his house painted. The fact was he had not. In fact, the market value of his house increased because of the fresh coat of paint. The fact that it was a mix up didn't enter into it. The fact that he would not be able to pay for this mix up was not allowed to be considered either. The courts are only permitted to look at very specific things.

 

He LOST.

 

My class (as was I) was horrified. How could this be? It was a slam dunk case in our minds that this was an utterly unjust judgment. The courts are not supposed to be instruments of injustice. It's supposed to be the opposite. Yet here is a recent case on the books of exactly that - injustice being served.

 

Here's something else my Prof taught us.

 

One way you can breech a contract without losing is if you can show the contract was no contract at all.

 

A possible example to bring it home:

 

You and I are a divorcing couple. We hate each other's guts. But I am dancing all the way home because my lawyer just proved to the Judge that this Pre-Nupt contract you insist was legal was in fact no contract at all. Because it did not fulfill one of the necessary conditions of what Contract Law says must be present to be legally enforceable I got you where I want you. And now I'm gonna have my lawyer nail your balls to the wall. Because when the Pre-Nupt is ruled unenforceable then Family Law (another branch of law that is also ancient) takes over. I'm grinning from ear to ear cause there's a better than decent chance I may end up with a sweeter deal under traditional Family Law than I would with that "Unenforceable" Pre-Nupt.

 

Another counter intuitive example:

 

Let's say we are in negotiations over the price of some service. You make an offer and I refuse. I make a counter offer and you refuse. This goes back and forth for days. We both grow weary. I finally realize that your very first offer was the best deal out of all the offers made. I want to go back to that very first offer.

 

Under Contract Law you can not. You simply can not. Well, ok I suppose in real life you could - however, if a dispute then arises and a lawyer takes a look at it? He will not take the case because by going back to that very first offer you violated 100s of years of enforcible contract law. Once you refuse an offer it is REFUSED. FOREVER. You can not go back. You simply can not. Something must change even if the change is exceedingly tiny in order to bring it back under enforcible contract law. It can not be identical to a formerly refused offer.

 

Now as I stated earlier my Law Prof was an old, grizzled Ex-Marine. He loved to couch Contract Law negotiations in military terms.

 

So we got a good look at the underbelly of contract law negotiations between corporations.

 

Here's some other examples:

 

A good contract lawyer will know how to pepper a contract with "gotcha" clauses, "booby traps", "get out of jail free" clauses and other assorted tactics. They're all different but they ultimately rest upon one thing. Convincing the opposing Corporation's law team that this or that clause is saying one thing when in fact it is really saying something quite different.

 

He would regale us with story after story of exactly these kinds of things going on. He would pick a particular section of a contract, we would then (based on what we had learned from the prior classes reading assignments, supplementary material, online material, etc) have to figure out what that clause was actually saying. As I type this out it sounds easy. Trust me - there's a reason lawyers are paid obscene amounts of money. It was fricking hard as hell. Even with our open textbooks, the sup material, studying for days pouring over this stuff the *vast* majority of the time we got it wrong.

 

The average grade in that class was a D. You were one of the *lucky* ones if you made a C. And I don't recall anyone in that class making a B or A. It was hands down - of all the preliminary law classes I took - the hardest class I ever took. It was exhausting. BTW - despite his rep of being a tough prof his classes were so damn popular they would close in less than 30 minutes after registration opened.

 

I remember one class where we were examining a particular clause and it turned out to be a very damaging covert 'booby trap'. We were flabbergasted when we finally figured out what it was *really* saying. Why would anyone sign such an agreement?! Yet the other corporation had. And now they were trapped and tried desperately to convince the courts to let them out (which they couldn't alas).

 

I raised my hand. "Which chapters in our textbooks will begin teaching us these things?" I asked. I remember it to this day. He flashed me a big grin and said, "Ah Padawan. You will not find anywhere in your textbooks or class materials the things I am teaching you. That's why I'm paid the big bucks."

 

He was right. You see. The textbooks, supp material, etc all teach the rules of the game. But he was teaching us something far more valuable. He was teaching us HOW contract lawyers play the game. And a good lawyer plays HARD BALL. The better you can do it the better your firm is - the more renown you achieve and thus more clients and money you make.

 

He was showing us how the Game of Contract Law itself is "weaponized" and has been for centuries. I remember one class in particular early in the semester we were all walking around in a daze about how contract law is played out in real life. This is unethical! It's immoral! How can this be? How can a democracy permit these clearly unethical things to be? He agreed. It can be. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. But he's not payed to be a corporation's Conscience. He's paid to negotiate and write (or examine other company's) contracts to give his client the best possible position and widest latitude he possibly can all the while keeping an eagle eye out out for the stealth 'booby traps', 'gotcha' clauses, etc the other corporation's law team is trying to insert while trying to insert his own.

 

Another interesting thing he told us. Going strictly off his own decades long career as a Contract Lawyer with a diverse cross-section of Industries. He said some industries definitely engage in more of these seemingly unethical and immoral tactics than others.

 

For example, to the classes shock he said Hollywood was one of the least likely industries to engage in Contract tactics the average citizen would deem as immoral or unethical. Hollywood is surprisingly clean and upfront. Things move very fast in Hollywood and so word-of-mouth trust has a very high importance there. And so the Industry is one of the cleanest he's had to work with. Other industries you would never guess would be are much more inclined to play dirty in contract law.

 

These kind of games are played out in corporate life frequently. Sometimes it's ethical. Sometimes it's not. It just is what it is. And if multinational corporations do this to *each other* why do we think they would refrain from acting this way when dealing with anyone else? Be assured Citibank and Goldman Sachs have their own versions of my Law Prof on retainer.

 

 

 

 

Now...let's come back around to the Small Gov Conservative's love affair with Contracts. Ultimately Free Markets and Private Property rest upon the legitimacy of Contracts.

 

 

Realize that in moving along the line away from legislative bodies and regulatory bureaucracies the closer we move in practice toward courts and judges.

 

 

This is the real life end point of advocating for minimizing the role of Legislative bodies to a bare minimum. It is replacing Rule by democratically elected Legislatures with Rule by (typically) unelected Judges (whether public or private - aka Arbitrators).

 

 

It's taking 'gaming the system' out of the sunlight of open lobbying (whether in a legislature or with a regulatory agency) where we can at least all see it going on and moving it to the more private, arcane backroom of courts. And our courts are already strained.

 

Under many proposals of the Holy Trinity proponents (Contracts/Free Markets/Private Property Uber Alles) litigation would increase - dramatically so the more success was obtained in hacking away at Government.

 

 

 

 

Energy in the system is never lost. It will merely find another outlet.

[Nanashi]

[ralis]

What I have not seen in this thread is the continuing problem of the 'Military Industrial Complex'. We all can debate debt, party affiliation, big government, small government etc. ad infinitum. However, it really doesn't matter who is in office or even who the members of the Senate and Congress are. The real business of this government is war. Not just illegal unprovoked attacks on sovereign countries and by extension the nebulous 'war on terror', 'drug wars' and whoever/whomever the government deems a threat to national security. The age old cry of the oppressor always evokes national security as a priority over all other considerations.

 

 

The global spread of military power and the sales of military armaments to other countries. The development of bunker buster nukes and the new plutonium pit plant at Los Alamos National Labs. Exactly, why do we need more nuclear weapons? One reason and one only, is that of wanting more power, for the sake of having more power!

 

I have posted two You Tube videos of Pres. Eisenhower warning of the dangers of the 'Military Industrial Complex'.

 

 

http://www.lanl.gov/news/stories/plutonium.html

 

http://www.lasg.org/press/2011/AP_27May2011.html

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/global-arms-sales-dropped-sharply-in-2010-study-finds.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPFJDVKpB7s

Edited October 9, 2011 by ralis

[gendao]

What I have not seen in this thread is the continuing problem of the 'Military Industrial Complex'. We all can debate debt, party affiliation, big government, small government etc. ad infinitum. However, it really doesn't matter who is in office or even who the members of the Senate and Congress are. The real business of this government is war. Not just illegal unprovoked attacks on sovereign countries and by extension the nebulous 'war on terror', 'drug wars' and whoever/whomever the government deems a threat to national security. The age old cry of the oppressor always evokes national security as a priority over all other considerations.

 

 

The global spread of military power and the sales of military armaments to other countries. The development of bunker buster nukes and the new plutonium pit plant at Los Alamos National Labs. Exactly, why do we need more nuclear weapons? One reason and one only, is that of wanting more power, for the sake of having more power!

I've already commented on this several times and one of Ron Paul's Libertarian planks is an anti-war non-interventionist foreign policy. (Which of course pisses off all the mass media military-industrial complex puppetheads - of both mainstream parties!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6bzv3XiUo

He stands ALONE against both liberal and neocon warmongers - and his voting record actually matches his rhetoric!

Not only is waging war against Arabs over global resource/financial control a poor and unethical longterm strategy, it is also bankrupting us!

[ralis]

I've already commented on this several times and one of Ron Paul's Libertarian planks is an anti-war non-interventionist foreign policy. (Which of course pisses off all the mass media military-industrial complex puppetheads - of both mainstream parties!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6bzv3XiUo

He stands ALONE against both liberal and neocon warmongers - and his voting record actually matches his rhetoric!

Not only is waging war against Arabs over global resource/financial control a poor and unethical longterm strategy, it is also bankrupting us!

 

It doesn't matter who the POTUS is. The war machine will continue.

[Enishi]

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but it needs to be kept in mind as events proceed...

 

 

How COINTELPRO really works and destroys social movements: Open letter from former Tea Partier to Occupy Wall Street protesters

 

I don't expect you to believe me. I want you to read this, take it with a grain of salt, and do the research yourself. You may not believe me, but I want your movement to succeed. From a former tea partier to you, young new rebels, there's some advice to prevent what happened to our now broken movement from happening to you. I don't agree with everything your movement does, but I sympathize with your cause and agree on our common enemy. You guys are very intelligent and I trust that you will take this in the spirit it is intended.

 

I wish I could believe this Occupy Wall Street was still about ®Evolution, but so far, all I am seeing is a painful rehash of how the government turned the pre-Presidential election tea party movement into the joke it is now. We were anarchists and ultra-libertarians, but above all we were peaceful. So, the media tried painting us as racists. But when that didn't work they tried to goad us into violence. When that failed, they killed our movement with money and false kindness from the theocratic arm of the Republican party. That killed our popular support.

 

I am sharing these observations, so you guys know what's going on and can prevent the media from succeeding in painting you as violent slacker hippies rebelling without a cause, or from having the movement be hijacked by a bunch of corporatists seeking to twist the movement's original intentions. If you think this can't happen, it happened to the Independence Party and the tea party movement. Don't let it happen to your movement as well.

 

Comment: What the author details comes right out of the Ponerization/Cointelpro playbook described in Andrew Lobaczewski's Political Ponerology.

 

 

 

Here's how they turned our movement into a bunch of pro-corporate Republican party rebranding astroturf, and this is how I predict they are turning your movement into a bunch of pro-corporate Democratic party rebranding astroturf. I believe many of these things are already happening, so take note.

 

1- The media will initially and purposely avoid covering your dissenting movement to cause confusion about what your movement is about within mainstream audiences. This is to enrage you and make you appear unreasonable, and perhaps even invisible.

 

2- While the obfuscation is happening, corporatists/government stooges will infiltrate and give superficial support, focus and financial backing to the targeted movement. In the tea party movement's case, it was the religious Republicans and Koch Brothers. In this case, it's the Public Sector Unions (the organizations as quasi-human entities, not the members themselves) and Ultra Rich liberals who pretend to care, but frankly do not serve liberators and freedom seekers but rather the interests of those who run the Public Sector Unions and the Democratic Party. Democrat, Republican, these parties are all part of the same corporate ruling system. Case in point: http://www.debates.org/

 

3-The media will cover the movement only after this infiltration succeeds. Once the infiltration is completed the MSM will manufacture public media antipathy towards the movement by using selective focus on the movement's most repulsive elements or infiltrators on the corporate Conservative media side, while the corporate Liberal media will create a more sympathetic tragic hero image -- this is the flip side of the tea party, but same media manipulation tactics. I go into greater detail on this tactic here.

 

4- Someone in the Democratic Party will feign sympathy for the movement and falsely "non-partisan" entities provide tons of funding and unwanted organization, just as was done with the tea party movement by Republicans. Once people assume that the government operatives are their friends, the government will hijack the movement and the threat of your movement will be neutralized.

 

If this new Occupy Wall Street movement is to survive, here's what needs to be done.

 

1- Loudly denounce violence and disavow the violent rabblerousers of the movement. They do not help the cause.

 

2- Be image conscious. Present your best face and call out those who act like fools within the movement. People are more likely to pay attention to you in your Sunday dress and bringing homemade food, than when you are drinking a bottle of Snapple and chomping on Big Macs while you are looking like a slacker rich hipster/unwashed hippie stereotype.

 

3- Accept that you've already been infiltrated by the government, and work hard to say, and state what your movement is and is not about. "No, this isn't about unions or Liberals, conservatives or bored spoiled brats. This is about 99% of our population being exploited and manipulated for the sake of profit." "No we will not resort to violence." "Yes, all we want is for for the end of government collusion with corporate entities that are illegitimately recognized as people." And, so forth...

 

4- Don't forget who you are as the illusions are thrown at you. Corporatists are masters of illusions. That's the most powerful weapon they have. That's how they sell products you don't need and convince you to justify accepting atrocities for the sake of products Don't fall for it. Otherwise, your cause will be lost. Be wary of large donations from special interest groups or non-profit corporations that were not involved this movement from the inception. Special interests groups are not your allies. Non-profit corporations are still corporations, and unfortunately, too many of them care more about donations than doing the right thing. Killing a movement with kindness is easy.

 

5- Remain independent and focused. If you can, pick a face to represent your movement. Rosa Parks wasn't just a random lady in a bus -- She was chosen. You too can use the power of illusion against those who oppose you.

 

I wish your movement better luck than we had with the tea party movement before it got hijacked by the theocrats and corporatists. We used to be non-partisan too. We were the older version of you. But, I believe that as the media apparatchik and infiltrators start to twist your cause, you will understand the frustration us early adopter tea partiers felt and that we were not your enemy after all. A fascist oligarchy on the verge of winning is our common enemy. This should be your focus. Don't be dazzled by the illusion as we were. For the sake of our future, know who you are.

 

Thank you for reading. I would love to read your ideas on the subject. Correct me where I am wrong. Explain what is going right. This is ultimately your fight.

 

EDITS: To understand how movements get hijacked, check out this fantastic video that JamesCarlin shared.

 

If my essay seems too conspiratorial for your tastes, try Hibernator's excellent and much less paranoid sounding summary below:

 

"Someone starts a movement. It starts small, and there's a lot going on in the world, so the mainstream media gives it minimal coverage. Today's mainstream media is also understaffed, so they don't investigate and they wait for someone else to slap a label on it.

 

Eventually a sound byte X pops up above the noise and the mainstream media uses this to engage viewers and define the movement. This defining characteristic X spreads like a meme.

 

People in power now notice what's going on, and think to themselves "Hmm, this new movement is defined by X, and that's almost in line with my goals, so maybe I can use them to further my ends."

 

But people in power are all labelled as Democrats or Republicans, so now the media applies the polarizing filter of American politics to associate movement X with one of the parties.

 

The original movement has now been labelled X, and associated with a political party, and none of this happened because of any 'government conspiracy.' It just happened because that's what you get as output when you plug something new into the American political system."

[JustARandomPanda]

It doesn't matter who the POTUS is. The war machine will continue.

 

Well then the follow up question becomes how to "jam" the war machine. Any suggestions as to how individuals can do that?

[JustARandomPanda]

I know I've been critical of the Small Gov mentality but in many ways I'm highly sympathetic to their aims. I just think the vast majority of 'Big Government is the Problem' people have not thought through some of the unintended consequences of their aim (like the fact litigation would increase, not decrease - and that's only one example).

 

Like their reliance on contracts as one of their three guarantors of preserving individual freedom. Sounds good in theory but in real life contract law is gamed too and gamed hard. Because most tweeters and message board protestors are not familiar with contract law even at a cursory level they put a lot higher faith in it that I do. Because of my classes I was disabused of that notion in a hurry. The Powers that Be know how to game our Contract Law too just like they game our Legislatures and our Regulatory Agencies.

 

Some things I think about:

 

I would like to see government's role reduced. But it needs to be counterbalanced by an equal emphasis on reducing the huge influence of corporations and their networks as well - something that frustrates me mightily with most Libertarians as I would otherwise be a lot more sympathetic to them than I am at the moment.

 

One start would be by repealing corporate personhood. However I have very little hope of that ever happening. Too few people are even aware of it and it's legal ramifications would be so great that huge constituencies would begin to aggregate to have it defeated.

 

Another thing I've never seen and wondered why not. Why do we not have a check box on our yearly tax returns that one could voluntarily mark that would dedicate $3 dollars (or some other amount) solely toward reducing federal debt? It would be optional. Would work exactly like the checkbox of dedicating money to federal campaigns but this second box would be toward reducing the debt. I wonder why no one has introduced a bill or championed such an idea to the general public.

 

I actually DO have a consistent voting record of not voting for a main candidate in either party. Haven't voted for a main party candidate in decades. Not many people I know in RL have the kind of voting record I have. I have a consistent decades-long voting record of useless protest votes.

[Seth Ananda]

Well then the follow up question becomes how to "jam" the war machine. Any suggestions as to how individuals can do that?

Dig up every Instance of corrupt Businessmen/Politician collaboration with vested interests, and demand Criminal Trial no matter who it is {Bush}, demand total accountability!

 

War Crimes charges for any politician who has entered a war on false pretexts [weapons of mass destruction] or has been obviously massively supported by, or owns shares in any company that profits from War.

 

So far they are all just getting away with it, with zero accountability. The public has to furiously demand legal Inquiry into these cases, till it gets done, and when inevitability it starts to happen but then prosecutors are cutting deals for cooperation or evidence is going missing, there needs to be even greater outrage and demand for retrials...

 

The Politicians need to start feeling shit scared to even slightly step out of line, because remember they are here to serve us, not to expand their bank accounts as they currently think.

 

Also there needs to be a massive push to ban corporate backing of politicians in any way whatsoever, Including a total ban on any politician owning shares in big business.

 

That would be a step in the right direction.

[Aaron]

Hello Folks,

 

I've been thinking about this for awhile and reflecting on what others have said in the past regarding change, especially change on a global scale and the one thing that keeps coming back to me again and again is that global change does not begin by changing politics or government, but rather changing one's self. Thoreau, Gandhi, Buddha, and Lao Tzu, to name just a few realized that change does not come through action, but inaction. It is not achieved by standing on the street corner shouting "injustice", but by refusing to partake in something that one believes to be wrong. When we cease supporting the structures that cause injustice and oftentimes that support comes simply by opposing it, then it will have nothing to hold it up and it will go away.

 

What does that mean today, in a day and age of global communication, when even those in the remotest parts of the world know who won the world cup of rugby? Well it means that we stop buying things we don't need. That we recognize the plight of our fellow man, not through words, but through kindness. We realize our responsibility as human beings towards our fellow man. So my suggestion for those who want true change, don't scream at the CEOs and politicians that they're wrong, do what's right. Stop feeding the machine, whether it's monetarily or through reverse propaganda and instead live a life that encourages others to change.

 

Love will not change the world, nor will hate, what will change the world is a devotion to compassion, a willingness to do what's right, regardless of the consequences, and the knowledge that what we have is not always what we need. Ensure that everyone has what they need, teach our children to understand the difference between needs and wants, and we could very well change the world in one generation. It is not only foreseeable, but possible.

 

Change does not begin with the politicians, governments, and corporations, it begins within each of us. Stop pointing fingers and instead look within yourself. I've said this once and I say it again because I think it needs to be said.

 

Aaron

[mYTHmAKER]

Beautiful and true post Aaron :) :)

[Seth Ananda]

Hello Folks,

 

I've been thinking about this for awhile and reflecting on what others have said in the past regarding change, especially change on a global scale and the one thing that keeps coming back to me again and again is that global change does not begin by changing politics or government, but rather changing one's self. Thoreau, Gandhi, Buddha, and Lao Tzu, to name just a few realized that change does not come through action, but inaction. It is not achieved by standing on the street corner shouting "injustice", but by refusing to partake in something that one believes to be wrong. When we cease supporting the structures that cause injustice and oftentimes that support comes simply by opposing it, then it will have nothing to hold it up and it will go away.

 

What does that mean today, in a day and age of global communication, when even those in the remotest parts of the world know who won the world cup of rugby? Well it means that we stop buying things we don't need. That we recognize the plight of our fellow man, not through words, but through kindness. We realize our responsibility as human beings towards our fellow man. So my suggestion for those who want true change, don't scream at the CEOs and politicians that they're wrong, do what's right. Stop feeding the machine, whether it's monetarily or through reverse propaganda and instead live a life that encourages others to change.

 

Love will not change the world, nor will hate, what will change the world is a devotion to compassion, a willingness to do what's right, regardless of the consequences, and the knowledge that what we have is not always what we need. Ensure that everyone has what they need, teach our children to understand the difference between needs and wants, and we could very well change the world in one generation. It is not only foreseeable, but possible.

 

Change does not begin with the politicians, governments, and corporations, it begins within each of us. Stop pointing fingers and instead look within yourself. I've said this once and I say it again because I think it needs to be said.

 

Aaron

Its a nice sentiment, but I have to disagree in part.

First off, the part I agree with is that change begins within, and I like how you expressed Inaction to do with ceasing activities that support dodgyness, like buying Coke, because they pay death squads to kill off union members in their coke farms...

 

But... You mention Gandhi. Gandhi organised massive sit downs, peaceful protests, and shouting of the peoples demands. That is how he brought change to India.

Every revolution requires action, and had action. End of story.

If the people don't mass, they get ignored.

 

I believe it is very dangerous at this precarious time on earth, to tell people "Don't protest, it is not spiritual!" "Inaction is the way!"

 

My counter, is that that is not really Inaction, but rather apathy.

 

Inaction [how I understand it] includes action. My example would be the soft martial arts, that have Inaction as a core philosophy. They meet force, then yeild, and as the opponent gets sucked into his own trajectory they strike or push with their own force. When executed well the results are devastating.

 

That is inaction at work. The Martial artist does not shy away from conflict, and stands her ground. She uses direct force not all the time, but at the right moment to be most effective.

 

Protesting can Indeed be like this. No fear of conflict, yeilding to the cops, then surging back from another angle... Never really leaving the spot light.

Standing for what is right at a very very crucial time.

 

The other option is handing you grandchildren their ruined world, and telling them you 'did nothing because it wasn't spiritual'

[Seth Ananda]

Here are some Gandhi quotes:

 

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

 

One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must be defended against the heaviest odds.

 

A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.

 

A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.

 

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.

 

All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.

 

In a gentle way, you can shake the world.

 

It is any day better to stand erect with a broken and bandaged head then to crawl on one's belly, in order to be able to save one's head.

 

Let us all be brave enough to die the death of a martyr, but let no one lust for martyrdom.

 

Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

 

 

 

There are Tons more, from this Brave activist who changed a Nation.

Seth.

[Aaron]

Its a nice sentiment, but I have to disagree in part.

First off, the part I agree with is that change begins within, and I like how you expressed Inaction to do with ceasing activities that support dodgyness, like buying Coke, because they pay death squads to kill off union members in their coke farms...

 

But... You mention Gandhi. Gandhi organised massive sit downs, peaceful protests, and shouting of the peoples demands. That is how he brought change to India.

Every revolution requires action, and had action. End of story.

If the people don't mass, they get ignored.

 

I believe it is very dangerous at this precarious time on earth, to tell people "Don't protest, it is not spiritual!" "Inaction is the way!"

 

My counter, is that that is not really Inaction, but rather apathy.

 

Inaction [how I understand it] includes action. My example would be the soft martial arts, that have Inaction as a core philosophy. They meet force, then yeild, and as the opponent gets sucked into his own trajectory they strike or push with their own force. When executed well the results are devastating.

 

That is inaction at work. The Martial artist does not shy away from conflict, and stands her ground. She uses direct force not all the time, but at the right moment to be most effective.

 

Protesting can Indeed be like this. No fear of conflict, yeilding to the cops, then surging back from another angle... Never really leaving the spot light.

Standing for what is right at a very very crucial time.

 

The other option is handing you grandchildren their ruined world, and telling them you 'did nothing because it wasn't spiritual'

 

 

Fighting begets fighting. Go to the castle and drag out the king and burn him at the stake, then ask yourself how you are better than the king? Change does not come through fighting but rather understanding the capacity for compassion within each of us and acting compassionately. Rather than spend hundreds of dollars so you can go to New York to demonstrate on wall street, spend that money helping someone eat. No it isn't flashy, but who has helped more people, the man holding a sign screaming "injustice" or the man who handed a sandwich out to the homeless?

 

In a month if there is no one left protesting on wall street, there will still be hungry people. No matter what happens there will always be hungry people. We can't change that, but what we can change is our attitude about that. When we stop valuing what others value, then nothing can be stolen from us. When we teach our children that they don't need an X-Box 360, but rather food, clothes, and a safe place to sleep, then there will be a lot less X-Boxes being bought.

 

Change, true change, does not occur through revolution, rather it occurs through one's treatment of another person. Look at Egypt and look at Libya in a few months and what you'll see is that those who rise to power through conflict do not give up the power they gain, but those who do not rise at all, those are the people that will truly have lasting change.

 

Who is more respected in the world Gandhi or Che Guevara? Both were martyrs, both had the same intentions, but took different paths to achieve those intentions, one through peace and one through revolution. As soon as one picks up arms to change the world, then one should be aware that they can never lay those arms down without fear that their enemies will rise up against them, but if one enacts change through peace, then that will be a lasting change.

 

Stop shouting "change your ways" and instead change your ways, that seems to be the simple truth that is escaping everyone these days. Of course if you have the opportunity to buy a 52" flat screen television or feed a hundred hungry children, which will you do with your money? If you honestly answer this question, then you will begin to see where you need to change yourself.

 

Aaron

 

edit- And just to set the record straight, Gandhi wasn't an activist at all, he was a pacifist.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Twinner

[Seth Ananda]

Fighting begets fighting. Go to the castle and drag out the king and burn him at the stake, then ask yourself how you are better than the king? Change does not come through fighting but rather understanding the capacity for compassion within each of us and acting compassionately. Rather than spend hundreds of dollars so you can go to New York to demonstrate on wall street, spend that money helping someone eat. No it isn't flashy, but who has helped more people, the man holding a sign screaming "injustice" or the man who handed a sandwich out to the homeless?

 

In a month if there is no one left protesting on wall street, there will still be hungry people. No matter what happens there will always be hungry people. We can't change that, but what we can change is our attitude about that. When we stop valuing what others value, then nothing can be stolen from us. When we teach our children that they don't need an X-Box 360, but rather food, clothes, and a safe place to sleep, then there will be a lot less X-Boxes being bought.

 

Change, true change, does not occur through revolution, rather it occurs through one's treatment of another person. Look at Egypt and look at Libya in a few months and what you'll see is that those who rise to power through conflict do not give up the power they gain, but those who do not rise at all, those are the people that will truly have lasting change.

 

Who is more respected in the world Gandhi or Che Guevara? Both were martyrs, both had the same intentions, but took different paths to achieve those intentions, one through peace and one through revolution. As soon as one picks up arms to change the world, then one should be aware that they can never lay those arms down without fear that their enemies will rise up against them, but if one enacts change through peace, then that will be a lasting change.

 

Stop shouting "change your ways" and instead change your ways, that seems to be the simple truth that is escaping everyone these days. Of course if you have the opportunity to buy a 52" flat screen television or feed a hundred hungry children, which will you do with your money? If you honestly answer this question, then you will begin to see where you need to change yourself.

 

Aaron

lol I think you entirely missed my point. Gandhi created protests with lots of shouting that were Non Violent. I am not advocating Violence in any form at all, but peaceful protests draw attention, and cause people to start asking what everyone is protesting about. Protesting creates change slowly on a mass level. Gandhi encapsulated this with his

 

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

 

He directly advocated Non Violent protest as the best way to create change.

 

You can not use Gandhi as an example of your stance.

He was straight up anti your perspective.

 

Again here he addressed the death of one of his protesters:

 

A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.

 

That man was beaten to death in a peaceful protest against British occupation.

 

Every salvo' shop on the corner feeds a few people's mouths, and they have been going for decades. No real change has come about.

Many people live really dodgy greedy lives, then donate to charity, and then pat themselves on the back about how good they are.

In this way, charity is part of the problem. It is putting a band aid on the surface of a deep deep wound, and letting people sit back and think they are good when really they are not.

what is needed is to change the system so that charity is not needed in the first place, and that will not happen by your methods, but by Gandhi's methods.

 

Non Violent Protest. It has to reach a mass so huge, that the powers that be start to seriously consider the Demands.

 

 

Again If you are happy to look your grandkids in the eye, and weakly tell them that you 'did nothing' because it was not spiritual, as you hand them a destroyed world, feel free. Sit back. Make little gestures that no one sees like not buying Coke, but beware of just doing those things as a way to feel better about your 'inaction'.

 

Seth.

[Seth Ananda]

 

edit- And just to set the record straight, Gandhi wasn't an activist at all, he was a pacifist.

Again, this is misinformation and absolute rubbish. Gandhi was behind peaceful protest, and backed a movement so huge, that Great Brittan was eventually forced by public opinion in India and back home to leave... giving up an empire that made them a fortune.

 

Astonishing. Read his Biography, even watch the movie. An amazing man.

 

Educate yourself before you prescribe theory's to someone that are completely Irrelevant.

[Aaron]

lol I think you entirely missed my point. Gandhi created protests with lots of shouting that were Non Violent. I am not advocating Violence in any form at all, but peaceful protests draw attention, and cause people to start asking what everyone is protesting about. Protesting creates change slowly on a mass level. Gandhi encapsulated this with his

 

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

 

He directly advocated Non Violent protest as the best way to create change.

 

You can not use Gandhi as an example of your stance.

He was straight up anti your perspective.

 

Again here he addressed the death of one of his protesters:

 

A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.

 

That man was beaten to death in a peaceful protest against British occupation.

 

Every salvo' shop on the corner feeds a few people's mouths, and they have been going for decades. No real change has come about.

Many people live really dodgy greedy lives, then donate to charity, and then pat themselves on the back about how good they are.

In this way, charity is part of the problem. It is putting a band aid on the surface of a deep deep wound, and letting people sit back and think they are good when really they are not.

what is needed is to change the system so that charity is not needed in the first place, and that will not happen by your methods, but by Gandhi's methods.

 

Non Violent Protest. It has to reach a mass so huge, that the powers that be start to seriously consider the Demands.

 

 

Again If you are happy to look your grandkids in the eye, and weakly tell them that you 'did nothing' because it was not spiritual, as you hand them a destroyed world, feel free. Sit back. Make little gestures that no one sees like not buying Coke, but beware of just doing those things as a way to feel better about your 'inaction'.

 

Seth.

 

Hello Seth,

 

I didn't miss your point, I just didn't agree with it. Gandhi would have no problem with peaceful protest, he was all for that, but the key thing was peace, not shouting "be gone white devil" or "the 1% are evil" but rather "we deserve to be treated fairly".

 

Also before you cut and paste a list of quotes, try to be aware of what the quotes pertain to. The quote "a man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act..." was referring to Jesus.

 

Anyways... I'm not going to argue, so you can believe what you want, but I think that if I do what I know is right, teach my children to do the same, then I will do more good than I ever could by telling other people how they're wrong.

 

Lets see how much peace, prosperity, and lasting change comes from this sit in. I say it again, if you want lasting change, change yourself and help your fellow man, asking for nothing in return, when you can do that, then you have begun a true revolution.

 

Or you can shake your fist at the sky and shout "shame on you" and see where that gets you.

 

And for the brutal truth, what we have on Wall Street is the product of the middle class, finally being forced to the underclass, making a stand to become the middle class again. You offer all those people a million dollars to go home, 99% will leave and 1% will stay. The only difference between the 1%ers and the protesters is that the 1% have what the protesters want. True change will not come about from socialism, but rather from a complete change in our way of thinking... How do you stop the thieves? By not valuing the things they steal.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I am educated regarding Gandhi, that's why I know he'd never call himself an activist, but rather a pacifist... there is a distinction that apparently your are missing.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Twinner

[Seth Ananda]

Hello Seth,

 

I didn't miss your point, I just didn't agree with it. Gandhi would have no problem with peaceful protest, he was all for that, but the key thing was peace, not shouting "be gone white devil" or "the 1% are evil" but rather "we deserve to be treated fairly".

Nice back peddle, so now you say Gandhi is an activist...

 

Also before you cut and paste a list of quotes, try to be aware of what the quotes pertain to. The quote "a man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act..." was referring to Jesus.

I will have to double check that, but without total certainty, i believe that to be incorrect. Gandhi had many speeches he gave to help calm enraged crowds after protesters had been killed, and I was under the impression the allegorical connection to Jesus was deliberately evoked to describe a young man who had given his life for his country in one such protest.

 

Anyways... I'm not going to argue, so you can believe what you want, but I think that if I do what I know is right, teach my children to do the same, then I will do more good than I ever could by telling other people how they're wrong.

I don't think we have time to hope that each little change from each little good deed will eventually make something good. To me this is apathetic and cowardly, but hey, each to their own...

 

Lets see how much peace, prosperity, and lasting change comes from this sit in. I say it again, if you want lasting change, change yourself and help your fellow man, asking for nothing in return, when you can do that, then you have begun a true revolution.

 

Or you can shake your fist at the sky and shout "shame on you" and see where that gets you.

 

Aaron

Lots have done the change yourself thing, and no true revolution has been seen anywhere.

 

Gandhi's people did what the Wall street occupiers are doing. Peacefully gathering in mass, and making some noise. If that frightens you or disturbs your 'calm' so be it.