Wall Street Occupation

[Hans Ludwig 0]

People are struggling for democracy and freedom on the streets of NYC, Chicago, Denver and in numerous other cities across North America:

https://occupywallst.org/

190 kb image removed

170 kb image removed

108 kb image removed

Nobody Can Predict The Moment Of Revolution

I don't know about you, but I don't want a democracy. I want my Constitutional Republic; not mob rule.

[gammadust 12]

As if the "mob rule" wasn't precisely what constituency gets by crossing their arms watching the criminals get away with it.

It's over! People are fed up, definitely a good sign democracy is coming to the streets a bit everywere around the globe!

Constitution and Democracy are not antagonistic concepts, they're complementary. One refers to a set of rules that establish institutionalized power, the other refers to the source of that exact power being it's citizens.

When the citizens have the need to show their discontent in the streets (against the police and institutionalized authorithy) must mean Democracy is no more much less a working Constitution.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

It's over! People are fed up, definitely a good sign democracy is coming to the streets a bit everywere around the globe!

lol This could be why you are single. Tone down the crazy uncle talk and drink some more beer.

[gammadust 12]

Definitely a good sign you took the time to figure me all out :ok:

Any thoughts on my argument as a bonus?

[mrcash2009 0]

Hans, dont quote images, you will get a Chinese burn.

lol This could be why you are single. Tone down the crazy uncle talk and drink some more beer.

Massive assumption towards him? What your saying is ... "take alcohol and numb your mind and stop saying things" .. nice work.

[hellfire257 3]

When the citizens have the need to show their discontent in the streets (against the police and institutionalized authorithy) must mean Democracy is no more much less a working Constitution.

Agreed.

Although having said that it would be much better if more people did stand up for what they want to see happen a lot more often.

[gammadust 12]

No doubt! The thing is, unfortunately, it takes time for people stand up. The pressure against it is almost overwhelming. Even more unfortunate is in most cases people only stand up when simply there is no other way out, when one gets cornered enough. What has been proven is that it will happen sooner or later.

[Minutemen 10]

I don't know about you, but I don't want a democracy. I want my Constitutional Republic; not mob rule.

Agreed.

Naive People talking about "Democracy movements" all around the Globe. What was democracy about the egypt revolution? They protested because they hadn't anything to eat! The Facebook Middleclass kids went home after the protests and eat dinner which was cooked by their mommys. But the poore people stayed, they had no dinner waiting.

What is a Protest for Democracy? A bunch of idiots yelling "WE WANT TO TELL THOSE PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE".

Damn, i hate the democracy. But after Years of Media Brainwashing People don't know anything else anymore and even think it means "Freedom".

[gammadust 12]

The problem, imo, about Hanz phrase is that it equates on the same level "mob rule" with "democracy". And there is two ways, at least, we can interpret this:

Either "democracy" means what it is supposed to mean, "Rule of the People" (et. Greek - demos = people + kratos = rule), and by definition is exacly NOT "mob rule". And one can only disagree with Hanz by this definition.

Or "democracy" means what one perceives, as a matter of fact, to what is refered as our western political systems. If one agrees that "democracy" by current standards is prety far from what we could whish for, resembling its very inversion of meaning, constituting in reality a "mob rule" then, but only then, I could agree with Hanz formulation. Unfortunately this course of interpretation does not help and rather confuse "democracy" with "cleptocracy" or something of the kind.

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller

The fact that Facebook Middleclass kids, as soon as stuff got heated enough, retreated. Does not mean it will end there, and just the poor people get to eat rocks. It is when they realize they are next that the brewing gets interesting. The sooner they remind themselves of Niemöller words the better, it will mean the rulers had less time to face a divided population.

[Minutemen 10]

Either "democracy" means what it is supposed to mean, "Rule of the People" (et. Greek - demos = people + kratos = rule),

Demos in greek means Village, not people. Where do you learn such baloney? I bet in school.

In a Democracy the Krate Class rule the Deme, the Men which repressenting the upper Middelclass. People which are not free to carry Weapons are the Edios, the Mob. From that Word comes our word Idiot.

So at least, if every idiot eeeh, i mean edios can vote, you have mob rule.

In Most countrys you need a licence for nearly everything. Driving a car, carry a gun, fishing or run a pawn shop. But you can vote, without any inspection, about other peoples lives.

How would you call that? I call that mob rule, tyranny of thousand faces and the worst form of goverment every exist.

If there is tyranny of a king or a single dictator, a face where everybody knows whos in carge, everybody knows it needs to kill him to end tyranny. Roman law said, a dictator must be killed after a half year of the state of emergency which brought him to power.

But how to end a democracy tyranny? 49% against 51%?

Its the dumbest form of goverment ever.

And what about that Niemöller Quote? You know that a democracy brought the ones who did that to power?

I do something that that guy did not, i'am speaking out. He was first courteous about the nazis, untill they put him in a camp. And most people don't know what those words mean. It should reminde you that a majority in a democratic process can take the rights of a minority away.

[gammadust 12]

Democracy from δημοκÏατια

Origin:

late 16th century: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos 'the people' + -kratia 'power, rule'

My school is broken... agree!

Maybe the "Village Poeple" were precisely inspired by that :)

So at least, if every idiot eeeh, i mean edios can vote, you have mob rule.

So you prefer a "technocracy" instead? Maybe as distant from the populations as it gets, taking the example of the European Union?

In Most countrys you need a licence for nearly everything. Driving a car, carry a gun, fishing or run a pawn shop. But you can vote, without any inspection, about other peoples lives.

People live in a common society of course ones decisions influence the others. The point is to strike a reasonable balance between legitimate interest (mind I did not use the word "lawful" here)

How would you call that? I call that mob rule, tyranny of thousand faces and the worst form of goverment every exist.

Care to disagree, if democracy remains true to its meaning can never be "mob rule" as you say. You might have a point when in fact the word is used to refer the current system which I have no problem in accepting it as "ruled by mobsters".

But how to end a democracy tyranny? 49% against 51%? Its the dumbest form of goverment ever.

Perhaps you have a suggestion about how to deal with conflicting interests? Society is inevitably stratified by groups of interests (see Lobbies/Corporations/Unions), those conflicting interests must be regulated in order to maintain a symbiotic existence instead of a parasitic one.

It is not about "Unanimity" (that is utopic) it is about as much "Consensus" as possible. There has not been discovered a better way to deal with this but "Democracy" if taken its true meaning.

And what about that Niemöller Quote? You know that a democracy brought the ones who did that to power?

I do something that that guy did not, i'am speaking out. He was first courteous about the nazis, untill they put him in a camp. And most people don't know what those words mean.

The quote goes to show the need for less apathy from the general population. Don't attack ad hominem or the messenger, take his argument for what is worth. It is completely irrelevant if he was supportive of Nazism, in fact if looking that way it only goes to proove this very argument.

And if people don't understand the meaning, help them do, not otherwise. There is no point in defeating yourself that way.

It should reminde you that a majority in a democratic process can take the rights of a minority away.

I am still open to suggestions... but having observed that I am highly doubtfull the inverse would be better:

Would you rather have a minority rulling over the majority? Because that is the only way around that argument! As a matter of fact that is what you get nowadays by having a minority "mob" "rulling" over the majority rest.

[st_dux 26]

Would you rather have a minority rulling over the majority?

I would. A true democracy would be a disaster.

[ACPL Jon 68]

It's as simple, as it can get.

Good king = good life

Bad king = bad life

Good minority = good life

Bad minority = bad life

The world is as beatiful, as fucked up, because of humanity flaws, and until they are eliminated or properly controlled [the flaws, bad human urges], we're living in a broken system. And now ask Yourself - is there any way to change it...

[dysta 10]

It's as simple, as it can get.

Good king = good life

Bad king = bad life

Good minority = good life

Bad minority = bad life

The world is as beatiful, as fucked up, because of humanity flaws, and until they are eliminated or properly controlled [the flaws, bad human urges], we're living in a broken system. And now ask Yourself - is there any way to change it...

I don't believe in good or bad at all. I only believe in friendly and hostility.

[gammadust 12]

I would. A true democracy would be a disaster.

And a so called "democracy" as it is currently, becomes in your view less of a disaster? (Really... take a look outside, or your TV for that matter!)

Firstly "a true democracy" has not been experienced anywhere for one to claim such a strong opinion about it, specially if one is comparing against one kind of "democracy" which is as matter-of-factly experienced as no more than a "rule of the minority". So one first needs to prove if a "true democracy" would be infact a disaster.

Edited September 30, 2011 by gammadust

[hellfire257 3]

Two quotes from Winston Churchill for you:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

[st_dux 26]

And a so called "democracy" as it is currently, becomes in your view less of a disaster? (Really... take a look outside, or your TV for that matter!)

Firstly "a true democracy" has not been experienced anywhere for one to claim such a strong opinion about it, specially if one is comparing against one kind of "democracy" which is as matter-of-factly experienced as no more than a "rule of the minority". So one first needs to prove if a "true democracy" would be infact a disaster.

A true democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. It is mob rule over the rule of law. It is a system where 51% of the population can vote to take everything away from the remaining 49%. A constitutional republic, where the rule of law takes precedence over the will of 51% of the populace, is an obviously superior system.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Two quotes from Winston Churchill for you:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Brilliant quotes, particularly the last one. One of our democracies troubles is the lack of educated, charismatic, far sighted and brilliant leaders. Putin, Bush, Merkel, Sarkozy... that's really the lowest level one can imagine.

Edited September 30, 2011 by ProfTournesol

[celery 8]

How the fucking hell do these threads turn into these usual form of government deathmatches?

This link contains information about the topic of this thread, as there is none to be found here.

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

[katipo66 94]

The same exact way other threads turn to "console kiddies" and "go play COD" :D

[Spokesperson 0]

A lot of people show their true colors and say they are against democracy. They rather have a minority of capitalists ruling over them than being part of the rule themselves. Sure, some people are like that but eventually, just like all countless times before, those kind of lackeys will be dealt with by the united force of the masses that are longing for freedom and a life in dignity. Why? Because the interests of the capitalists don't represent the interests of the working people.

[gammadust 12]

A true democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. It is mob rule over the rule of law. It is a system where 51% of the population can vote to take everything away from the remaining 49%. A constitutional republic, where the rule of law takes precedence over the will of 51% of the populace, is an obviously superior system.

That is a reduced view of "Majority takes precedence" based decisions.

As if all issues, or even many issues, were disputed by interested parties always in those exact proportions. Let me tell you there exists in some countries what is called a "Qualified majority" where a majority of 66% is required to change certain estabilished regulations (of which a founding Constitution may be an example). Call it tirany all you want, I rather think of it as a "society's order defense mechanism".

I should let you know that many issues are disputed in even more outrageous proportions, of the type 10% to 90% or even 2% to 98%. The sad fact is if that is indeed the case, it is the minority which prevails, and apparently you choose this over the alternative.

I am doubting it is worth argueing with you just based on that, can you give me some other input to lead me otherwise? Be my guest. This is a discussion for democrats I believe, and you are showing spite for that value.

So tirany is democracy and democracy is tirany, cut the newspeak please.

How the fucking hell do these threads turn into these usual form of government deathmatches?

This link contains information about the topic of this thread, as there is none to be found here.

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

If I am allowed to speak for myself here, the topics I have been discussing, are perfectly pertinent and "on topic". Quoting your link (first paragraph):

Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing demonstration[1] opposing what participants view as negative corporate influence over U.S. politics and a lack of legal repercussions over the global financial crisis.[2] It was initially called for by Adbusters and was inspired by the Arab Spring movement, particularly the protests in Cairo's Tahrir Square which resulted in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution.[3]

I think it is very relevant to discuss the "form of government" issue, since it is claimed the system where the demonstration is ongoing is taken as a "Democracy", if that very meaning is put to question by "negative corporate influence over U.S. politics" and "lack of legal repercussions over the global financial crisis" which translates precisely to the "mob rule". It is hard for me to think how more relevant I can be.

Edited September 30, 2011 by gammadust

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Massive assumption towards him? What your saying is ... "take alcohol and numb your mind and stop saying things" .. nice work.

I'm pretty good reading people.

[st_dux 26]

@gammadust:

To be clear, I'm talking about pure democracy where literally every issue comes down to a vote and whatever 51% or more decide is the course of action that is taken. I am not opposed to a democratic republic where the majority can choose the law makers but the law is still the supreme rule (even when the majority disagrees with its implications).

[gammadust 12]

@gammadust:

To be clear, I'm talking about pure democracy where literally every issue comes down to a vote and whatever 51% or more decide is the course of action that is taken. I am not opposed to a democratic republic where the majority can choose the law makers but the law is still the supreme rule (even when the majority disagrees with its implications).

That is reasonable then. Hence the need to protect the "supreme rule" from modification by transitory governments with a "qualified majority", ie with the support of wider sectors of society or more parties. Note there is no requirement of unanimity, just better consensus. The importance/impact of the issue levels more or less consensus.

Despite the recognized shortcommings, of minorities having trouble prevailing their interests, it is difficult to envision a better solution than democracy. This would totaly go in line with Churchil's famous, and already cited:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Now... What is happening in European Union for example (sorry for the slight drift) is the intent of institutionalizing a "deficit limit" on the very Constitutions by subjugated governments, all this bypassing each countries Supreme Law's protection mechanisms. Bypassing not only the technicality of "Qualified Majority" but even worse, not even submitting the issue to universal sufrage, nevermind what would be its outcome and effective proportion of conflicting interests. This "deficit limit" would tye up whichever government comes next.

Constitution must leave leeway for new policy to be introduced, unlike common law to a lesser extent.

Bringing back the issue to Wall Street, it is the blatant responsability of the current Financial Crisis be layed on its perpetrators (Financial/Commercial Banking Sector, Insurance, Trading Regulatory Bodies) - those which hedged their bets, those which had to ensure it wouldn't happen. NOT lay it on this crisis' main victims (general consumer, workers, common working people) - those which are paying from their own taxes the bailouts of not only negligent activity but in many cases very criminal activity.

To accept this, not demonstrating against it, amounts to apathy towards the "mob rule", consent by omission, with the dangerous consequence of creating the precedent for a even more unbalanced society. To accept that "Democracy" as a Value has been destituted from its very essence, perverted to the point of being perceived as a similar thing to "Dictatorship" / "Cleptocracy" / "Oligarchy".

As much as I can see this, there will a be reaction against it from my part. Hopefully from many more.

Edited October 1, 2011 by gammadust