Occupy Wall Street

[Fallenman]

Discuss it, learn about it, google it. Do you agree? Is it not you? Are you not moved? Should they develop a platform? Or should they just open the forum?

I think the guiding message is end the plutocracy, usher in democracy. All the issues they're discussing everything they're doing seems to be promoting the simple message... we are the people, we are important, we are too big to fail.... listen to us.

I am finding my voice in this movement. How I've missed it....

 

[Roran]

They're angry, okay. But are they angry at the right people?

 

[Fallenman]

I don't think it matters who they're mad at. I think the only thing that matters is that they're mad and they're trying to be heard. And no, not all corporations are evil, but you can't deny that 1% of the population owns a vast majority of the wealth, at least in America. I don't see how anyone can rationalize the fairness of that one out. I'm not saying rich people bad, I'm saying... being that filthy rich means something.

 

[Fallenman]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...by-boomers-don-t-understand-the-protests.html

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I don't think it matters who they're mad at. I think the only thing that matters is that they're mad and they're trying to be heard. And no, not all corporations are evil, but you can't deny that 1% of the population owns a vast majority of the wealth, at least in America. I don't see how anyone can rationalize the fairness of that one out. I'm not saying rich people bad, I'm saying... being that filthy rich means something.

Some of the top 1% acquired that wealth by serving society. Others use the apparatus of government. If you are talking about the finance and banking industry, it has been cartelized through the Federal Reserve System 100 years ago. The protesters should not be protesting the wealth of the top 1% but government intervention into the market.

As far as I can discern, they are protesting the status quo for the institution of the status quo.

 

[Roran]

I don't think it matters who they're mad at. I think the only thing that matters is that they're mad and they're trying to be heard. And no, not all corporations are evil, but you can't deny that 1% of the population owns a vast majority of the wealth, at least in America. I don't see how anyone can rationalize the fairness of that one out. I'm not saying rich people bad, I'm saying... being that filthy rich means something.

Yeah. I get what you're saying.

 

[Fallenman]

@ProxyAmenRA
No one is bashing the people who worked hard for their money, they're mad at the people who use that money to lobby congress to create legislation which lets them line their pockets even further. They have no care whatsoever for the masses, and do not identify with the masses, their interests are not the interests of everyone else, the divide is... extensive.

The 1% funds our politicians, they get them elected, their opinions are heard and for the politicians their opinions matter. They are VASTLY more afraid of Wall Street than they are of us... There's something wrong with that. A democracy should not give more votes to those with the biggest pockets. We should all be equal under the eyes of the institution we created to serve us.

 

[Jesse]

America itself is the 1% of the population in the world as in they have the money. Something like 80% of people earn less than a dollar a day. Imagine of the rest of the world protested?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@ProxyAmenRA
No one is bashing the people who worked hard for their money, they're mad at the people who use that money to lobby congress to create legislation which lets them line their pockets even further. They have no care whatsoever for the masses, and do not identify with the masses, their interests are not the interests of everyone else, the divide is... extensive.

The 1% funds our politicians, they get them elected, their opinions are heard and for the politicians their opinions matter. They are VASTLY more afraid of Wall Street than they are of us... There's something wrong with that. A democracy should not give more votes to those with the biggest pockets. We should all be equal under the eyes of the institution we created to serve us.

This is precisely what democracy is all about. One group of people trying to loot the wealth of another group of people. I don't know why people are so upset that individuals, groups of individuals, activist organisations, unions, businesses etc. try and lobby representatives to introduce legislation favoring one group over any other. These protesters are just as bad as the "corporations" they demonize. They want to use the apparatus of government to favor what they want at the expense of others.

Speaking of the case of the US government, it was created for a very limited set of purposes as stipulated by the constitution. It was created to serve the US citizenry only to the extent of these purposes. The problem is that Hamilton put forward the case that there were implicit power granted to the government. The US government started to intervene in areas outside its obligations.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

America itself is the 1% of the population in the world as in they have the money. Something like 80% of people earn less than a dollar a day. Imagine of the rest of the world protested?

You are holding a dubious assumption that the wealth held by others belongs to everyone to some extent.

 

[Fallenman]

Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens"), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

No one said they couldn't have a voice, theirs is just as important as anyone else's. The point is, in actuality, their voice is more important than everyone else's. They're doing business as usual, its just that they're incredibly too effective at it, and that's a flaw in the system. More concisely, the system is currently a plutocracy. I implore you to research the Guilded Age, which in 2007 the wealthiest of the wealthy were claiming we were entering into for the second time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/15gilded.html?pagewanted=all

I wrote a paper comparing the two eras and i used that article when it first came out, funny that it should resurface now lol.

@Jesse
Ya, they should be heard too. The world should be heard. No 1% should be representing the majority. The majority should be representing itself, and getting things done. If the vast majority of the people are hungry, then they should be telling us to fix that. And I don't mean that its their fault, i mean that the people in power are obliged to concede and are only going to concede when the demands have been made and not complacently in passing, but with passion and vigor that cannot be dismissed because quite frankly, they are the majority.

If that makes any sense . Self-empowerment. Unfortunately we are the only ones who are going to fight our battles.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens"), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

No one said they couldn't have a voice, theirs is just as important as anyone else's. The point is, in actuality, their voice is more important than everyone else's. They're doing business as usual, its just that they're incredibly too effective at it, and that's a flaw in the system. More concisely, the system is currently a plutocracy. I implore you to research the Guilded Age, which in 2007 the wealthiest of the wealthy were claiming we were entering into for the second time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/15gilded.html?pagewanted=all

I wrote a paper comparing the two eras and i used that article when it first came out, funny that it should resurface now lol.

I don't think you understood me. The mere fact that people try to use the system to their own advantage is not the problem. It is the system itself which promotes such actions is the problem. The system needs to be removed for a system where no one has a voice in dictating the use of a monopoly of violence.

 

[Jelly Rev]

The majority should be representing itself, and getting things done.

no never ever. US is/was a republic not a democracy. The founders knew that democracy/mob rule doesnt work.
The majority is a blob of mostly emotions that swings its weight around reacting to things. It swung itself in wars not wanting to join to becoming reactive to events such as Pearl harbor, 9/11, etc. Its not like the CIA doesnt know the consequences of being in the middle east blowback.

The majority is bad, very bad. They do not have the cognitive ability to actually understand the changes that have to happen, why things are the way they are. To be honest most people dont want to hear the truth, they want a soundbyte that fits in with their schema of the world.
when the truth=/=world schema its called a conspiracy. People especially do not want to knwo they have been tricked by the world and their own brains.

The US is an entity with its own objectives. The sum of all its citizens, corporations, politicians make it what it is. It is a rational being in itself trying to survive and expand. These uber rich ppl also have there own goals but if they are not in the best interest of the US then they usually dont materialize.
I am curious about what pull these protest will have, most of their wants are not rational and would be extremely more idiotic and destructive to the US than doing something like bailing out the banks which was a smart move for the US as an entity.
This leads me to believe that things like campaign promises cant be promised bc the entity usually does not want them.
If the squalor becomes sufficent and does affect the ability for the US to maintain and gain then these occupy X demands will be heard and some sort of deal will be worked out.

The problem with the concept of a country is that the country itself becomes an entity.

on a sidenote, Id like to see Ron Paul as president just to see if he can battle with this US entity, or if the entity will kill him off/make him a typical politician or actually have him assasinated.

 

[Oblivious]

As far as I can discern, they are protesting the status quo for the institution of the status quo.

Realise that there are no governments and there are no corporations.

All there is is Power and those who wield it. Democracy does not claim to save you from it and anarchy sure as hell does not either.

 

[Fallenman]

Lol I'll try and be more pragmatic instead of emotional. I am just excited by the movement, because I think the system is defunct.

I know we operate under the constraints of a republic. We need leaders to make the right decisions, especially because often times that is the most efficient way to get things done. I am not advocating for mob rule, there are way too many ignorant people out there who would do more harm than good. But I'm more in line with the protesters who respond to the question, "What is your solution?" with "It's not our job to find the solution, its our leaders jobs, we're just expressing our discontent with the way things are running now".

Congress is being incredibly obstructive towards progress, and we are suffering the consequences. We are heading towards a second dip, and we are going to pay the consequences. And the reason they are being obstructive, is because of the people who are funding their campaigns. They are holding out for legislation that favors the top %1, and we are suffering the consequences. To us it's not a game, we can't afford to wait around for them to figure it out. We need them to do something NOW, not three months from now.

Dissenters (I'm not including anyone here in this bracket, out of ignorance) seem to think that its just poor people griping about the fact that their poor, as if it was as simple as going out to find a job. In actuality, its not even within their ability to do anything about it. They have no control over the jobs that lay them off, or the ones that won't hire them. A quote from one of the links I posted above,

" I began to investigate the question of how many law graduates were getting jobs as lawyers, and discovered that a shocking percentage—more than half—were not.

Since I went to law school in the 1980s, the cost of legal education has quadrupled in real terms, thereby ensuring most current law students will graduate with six figures of debt from law school alone. Meanwhile legal employers are downsizing and outsourcing, to the point where the ratio between new lawyers and new jobs for lawyers is approximately two to one. And most of the new jobs don’t pay enough to allow even those who are lucky enough to get them to pay their educational debts."

We realize its hard. Life's tough, deal. We get it. But the economy is stagnant, and we can't have our representatives being stagnant as well.

Lol, I'm planning to go to law school, the statistics above are merely coincidental. I did everything I was told to do to get ahead in life, they told us if we did A B and C then inevitably you'd get D. Now its no longer promised. Now it's not even likely. And we're worse off for it too.

The main point is this, the world is falling apart, and the 99% are the first to go. We were put into this position by the 1% and they're not suffering the consequences. We are. And legislation continues to obstruct the system in favor of the 1% as we continue to spiral more and more out of control.

We bailed these banks out on the promise that they would fix their mistakes. They got richer, and didn't fix anything. Why continue to pander to them?

Our representatives simply aren't listening to us. If they weren't listening to us because they knew better, more power to them. That isn't the case. They're not listening to us, and we're still fucked. So we're calling them out on their stupidity.

 

[Fallenman]

So when I say the majority should represent themselves, I mean represent themselves through politicians who hold their interests at heart. Not the interests of the 1%.

 

[Fallenman]

"Obviously, I don't think any American is impressed when they see [former Massachusetts] Gov. [Mitt] Romney and all the Republican candidates say the first thing they'd do is roll back Wall Street reforms and go back to where we were before the crisis and let Wall Street write its own rules," Axelrod said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/herm...wall-street-blame-democrats/story?id=14748857

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Realise that there are no governments and there are no corporations.

All there is is Power and those who wield it. Democracy does not claim to save you from it and anarchy sure as hell does not either.

That's nice...

The only thing that hold power are ideas. This is no more so evident than from the great experiment called history.

I can say after observing this occupy wall street mob, many people hold many dubious ideas. It is hilarious. They don't know that they don't know anything.

---

@ Fallenman,

Yes, something is most definitely wrong with the world but before you engage any further with Marxist class struggle dogma, perhaps you should actually learn how the current system operates, economics and philosophy. Continuing to strawman the top 1% is ridiculous. Yes, something is wrong but it is not the top 1% and their lobbying of politicians. The wealth that they hold are only the symptoms of the problem.

 

[Fallenman]

Lol I suppose that comes out as Marxist. I just espouse for more participation in democracy. They're not the entire problem, but I believe that sympathizers to the 1% are obstructing any progress whatsoever for fixing the economic problem. I don't pretend to know if it is more sound to go top down or bottom up, but I don't think anything gets solved if nothing happens. Congress isn't doing anything, and that's a problem.

Do you not think that it is in the interest of the capitalists to curtail government regulation in order to render a profit? That seems intuitive. It is for that reason that companies outsource, because the regulations are already too extensive. And maybe that would be counter-productive to the movement to push them away further, but in my opinion... if they wanted to ruin this country, then that would really start an uproar. It's a perfect storm. No matter what happens, the movement isn't going to lessen before a compromise is struck.

 

[Fallenman]

I don't hate capitalism, I believe in it entirely, I just don't think that capitalism gives a damn about humanity. It is an never ending effort to generate the largest profit. Sometimes at the expense of others. Sometimes at the expense of millions. Regulation is necessary.

 

[Jelly Rev]

^in total agreement with everything proxy said.

Our representatives simply aren't listening to us. If they weren't listening to us because they knew better, more power to them. That isn't the case. They're not listening to us, and we're still fucked. So we're calling them out on their stupidity.

The best part about this is that they are not stupid. They are not fucked and the US is not fucked.

Major problems have been perpetuated throughout society that have led us to this current US predicament.
-the american dream of having the house, ppl were stupid and believed they could pay for something they couldnt
-the new american dream that is falling apart...college this bubble will burst. college has become for the most part not worth the cost anymore.
Government intervention with the loaning market has caused and will cause more problems this is another symptom of govt fuckin shit up for liberal causes.
-subsidizing/tax breaks are a major problem. I dont want my tax money paying for some solar panel research, when it becomes cheap and viable enough the market will let us know. plus this leads to corporation inefficency. another fail liberal stance.
GE's tax rate for ex. doesnt pay due to tax loopholes and subsidies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

-A major issue never addressed is licensing, barriers to entry to enter the market are all over the place now. Get rid of most licensing rules and prices will come dramatically down. I shouldnt need a superdoc for my cold, doctor specialization should occur. monopolies hold the doctor licensing industry hence raising cost.

-minimum wage law: shoodnt exist

-and of course the wars

At the core most of the problems have been created by Liberal policies aimed at increasing the wellness of all individuals but the market doesnt work this way.
Social security is screwed over bc it failed to take into account the future, lower birth rates and longer life.

The people in the protest advocate more law making and more things to regulate the market without looking towards future consequences.

Lastly I dont advocate conservative policy either, unless u mean libertarian also known as old liberal, lol lets call it libertarian though.

 

[Fallenman]

Bare-bone capitalism.

Lol i'm going to drop it.

I feel unarmed, and that is irresponsible.

A lesson well learned.

 

[Kuu]

You know there was already a thread about this in politics and history....................

 

[Fallenman]

My apologies.

 

[EditorOne]

If one gets too specific, cohesion is lost. (Kind of an INTP mantra, huh?)

Reuters had an article yesterday. I thought the point of the whole thing was there: Protesters are against economic greed coupled with irresponsible power leading to extreme economic inequality.

Within that framework, bring it back to your own reality, especially if you think there is anything like thoughtful attempts at a healthy society/economy/world/culture anywhere in any of the events that put us where we are today. Your reality is very polarizing, as things tend to be at moments of decision. Either you have more than a couple of million dollars, in which case you are the economic elite that is writing the rules and concentrating the wealth, and therefore you are a schmuck, or you do not, in which case you are a relatively powerless pauper, a schmoe. You may or may not be aware of your schmoe-ness. It seems safe to say that those who have lost their jobs and their position in the fast evaporating world of the middle class are probably most aware of their actual status and have had an ephiphany forced on them. Those still working might continue to deceive themselves that everything's OK.

 

[Roran]

Basically, democracy can't work because people are stupid. But what else will work? You can't trust any single person to run a country. Even if they are the leader, they are still human. So... what should we do?

 

[yogurtexpress]

Basically, democracy can't work because people are stupid. But what else will work? You can't trust any single person to run a country. Even if they are the leader, they are still human. So... what should we do?

Nuke Earth.

 

[Roran]

I think I'll pass on the whole "dying" thing for now.

 

[Meer]

Modify our genetics to tone down the lizard brain.

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

Sentiments I would like to share with this movement:

1) The biggest concern of mine for my fellow man is that education in this country is a joke compared to what it could be. There are far too many people who, at an adult age, still do not know how to effectively communicate with the intent of fitting in to society, which we all have to do to some degree.
I've spent my life moving around to different parts of Chicago and, depending upon where you live, you could move from one area of the city to another and think you're in a completely different place, when interacting with people. Most of the vast differences I see, I would say I see in the African-American communities, especially on the south side. A lot of these guys, I mean, they honest to God don't know how to read and have no desire to learn about anything except what goes on inside of their neighborhoods. In general, value systems and expectations there seem to built upon a foundation set by their parents and grandparents, who very frequently had little to no education whatsoever. This is an entire sect of American society that, while many people of other cultures around the world continue to evolve into the 21st century, continue to lag severely.
A lot of what goes on here comes from a nonexistent concern from a lot of people to promote growth in these communities, coupled with Chicago politics and corruption. I know from having spent good amounts of time in some of the other big U.S. cities that similar problems lie within their city limits as well.


2) Energy technology. What the hell are we still doing still sucking oil out of the ground if its supposedly going to be running out fairly soon? Well, that's a question with an obvious answer I suppose; one could just look around them and see that 80+% of what the have is a product of oil refinement, not just cars and trucks. But if we're really in danger though (ignoring all environmental concerns for now), its not like the infrastructure of an entire industrialized society can be changed overnight. Major changes should have been underway, like, yesterday....but it seems as though it isn't being taken seriously enough. Who knows how much we've got left to dig out? Could be another market ploy.


3) Tax dollars. A lot of dissatisfaction I have with the current regime is that everyone does not pay their fair share. I don't know if anyone out there has a real solution to our current inhumane capitalistic economic scheme, nor do I think that there is necessarily one great way to make everyone happy (there isn't), but if at least we all paid our fair shares, closing a few tax loopholes, there wouldn't be too much more that people could complain about. You know, besides the fact that our elected government and officials are not actually the ones who run us, and therefore if we ever had a gripe with upper management, then....you know, tough titty.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Basically, democracy can't work because people are stupid. But what else will work? You can't trust any single person to run a country. Even if they are the leader, they are still human. So... what should we do?

Anarchy for one. Similar to the types of judicial systems that existed in periods where the state or king did not claim monopoly right of the process of jurisprudence. These periods were marked by great increases in the standards of living of people. Alternatively, a constitutional republic with a constitution that stipulates that the state has no powers beyond what is expressly written in the document. There should be a clause of separation of state and economics. Essentially no power what so ever beyond protection of private property, contracts and national defense. However with no monopoly of jurisprudence. Under no circumstances should there be a government monopoly of currency.

 

[Roran]

Anarchy for one. Similar to the types of judicial systems that existed in periods where the state or king did not claim monopoly right of the process of jurisprudence. These periods were marked by great increases in the standards of living of people. Alternatively, a constitutional republic with a constitution that stipulates that the state has no powers beyond what is expressly written in the document. There should be a clause of separation of state and economics. Essentially no power what so ever beyond protection of private property, contracts and national defense. However with no monopoly of jurisprudence. Under no circumstances should there be a government monopoly of currency.

See, you're forgetting that people are stupid.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

See, you're forgetting that people are stupid.

This is not an argument.

 

[Roran]

Basically people are too stupid to research and make sure they're not getting fucked over.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Basically people are too stupid to research and make sure they're not getting fucked over.

Still not an argument. I must say, you have very dismal view of people which is not supported by reality.

 

[Jah]

Here's a vote for Anarchy

 

[Dr. Freeman]

@Jesse
Ya, they should be heard too. The world should be heard. No 1% should be representing the majority. The majority should be representing itself, and getting things done. If the vast majority of the people are hungry, then they should be telling us to fix that. And I don't mean that its their fault, i mean that the people in power are obliged to concede and are only going to concede when the demands have been made and not complacently in passing, but with passion and vigor that cannot be dismissed because quite frankly, they are the majority.

If that makes any sense . Self-empowerment. Unfortunately we are the only ones who are going to fight our battles.

Um... Direct democracy? Aren't there just a few too many people (in America, if that is the country you are referring to) for that to be an effective system of government? I could work on the small scale, but with a country this large with such a politically unaware population it isn't a viable option.

 

[EditorOne]

Ideal effective democracy necessitates the existence of a rational, informed electorate. We in the United States seem increasingly to have an irrational, uninformed electorate, one that is heavily into emotion, as well. That was a problem in Greece and Rome and anywhere there's been a system that required those governing to at least have some reason to consider the needs of the governed while making decisions. We seem to have reached the point where the combination of malicious self-interested leadership and the enthusiastically ignorant mass of their supporters has unstoppable momentum.

If I seem a little morose recently, could be that I am. Massive doses of prednisone, to slam shut an immune system that had gone into hysteria mode because of all the mold and pollen overwhelming my part the earth, seem to have a side effect of making me somewhat grumpy and quite peremptory. Or perhaps reality really is just that dire.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

^ Regrettably, I think we have gotten to that position in our government where feeling has overcome logic when it comes to electing candidates.
(see 2008)
Feeling is not a bad thing if tempered with logic, but as had been shown recently, logic has been discarded in favor of hysteria and the desire for inclusion.

 

[Zionoxis]

My question is - what will this entire shenanigan actually do and what will it actually affect? It seems to me that instead of researching how to find the most capable candidate for the election, they are busy beating on drums and shouting at everyone who walks by.

 

[Fallenman]

I'm secretly hoping for revolution. I don't think any of the candidates are capable, by default of being within the system they're currently revolting against. Or perhaps a third party... but it still doesn't safeguard against the system itself.

Ron Paul seems to be the most exciting candidate for most people, but I don't agree with a lot of his views, but it is a step in a different direction lol.

 

[Chronomar]

Today, I was in an airport where the news was on CNN and they were talking about some Republican debate in Vegas (...can we just get rid of Vegas, please?), and some people with the "We are the 99%" signs were out chanting and protesting, and that made me smile.

I am hoping for the left to finally realize that the populist movement could be a (far) left-wing thing again, and that perhaps America is finally over being such a boringly moderate-conservative place, maybe we might actually do something in terms of getting our economic, environmental, and infrastructural houses in order. Then abroad the government could support, I don't know, actual democracies instead of dictatorships that will support terrorism later anyway.

Not very optimistic. But the protests going world-wide, and interrupting an otherwise mildly annoying press coverage of the (pointless) debate was smile-worthy.

And I also vote for anarchy.

I'd like an anarcho-communistic democracy/democratic-republic, specifically.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Today, I was in an airport where the news was on CNN and they were talking about some Republican debate in Vegas (...can we just get rid of Vegas, please?), and some people with the "We are the 99%" signs were out chanting and protesting, and that made me smile.

I am hoping for the left to finally realize that the populist movement could be a (far) left-wing thing again, and that perhaps America is finally over being such a boringly moderate-conservative place, maybe we might actually do something in terms of getting our economic, environmental, and infrastructural houses in order. Then abroad the government could support, I don't know, actual democracies instead of dictatorships that will support terrorism later anyway.

Not very optimistic. But the protests going world-wide, and interrupting an otherwise mildly annoying press coverage of the (pointless) debate was smile-worthy.

And I also vote for anarchy.

I'd like an anarcho-communistic democracy/democratic-republic, specifically.

I hope you do know, when ever the far left have ever taken power, be it the left-anarchists, fascists, socialists or communists, they start murdering people en mass. Further more, such systems can't function because they have no means of valuing resources.

 

[Chronomar]

I hope you do know, when ever the far left have ever taken power, be it the left-anarchists, fascists, socialists or communists, they start murdering people en mass. Further more, such systems can't function because they have no means of valuing resources.

Fair enough, although I'll note the circumstances were/are generally pretty fucked up to begin with in all those instances (re: South America).

In trying to figure out a resources model for my old idea, I scrapped it and came up with a new one...not really too sure if it's even anarchy anymore (something tells me no...), but whatever.

Spoiler

I actually like some elements of capitalism, so we'll keep a bit of it around, but tied to a cooperative system of production, in which the workers would own a factory, the farmers would all own the farm, the teachers would all own a private school (if one existed outside the state-funded schools), the scientists would all own their lab...also, "taxes" would be rather high, but instead of really going to a government they go local "government cooperatives" who would have a mandate to provide fresh water, electricity/energy, a basic level of food, clothing, shelter, roads/transport, school systems, construction services. All income would therefore be left over for "luxury" items, which would be produced within this cooperative economy. It would be a free-market economy between cooperatives, but at a small scale structural level must occur through the cooperative process, so sort of not. Induvidual government cooperatives can institute constitutional regulations within their very limited local areas should they so vote.

Such government cooperatives would be a rotating group of people, drawn dually from the heads of all the local economic cooperatives and representatives democratically elected from small local districts.

There would be a constitutional justice system, and a constitutional referendum would occur every few years. As to enforcement, there would be enforcement of whatever (minimal) laws exist by whatever means the local government-cooperative has decided upon, keeping in mind that the local-government cooperative is very nearly a direct democracy (it's very local), with an added layer of inter-locality relations occurring through #1: good-will and mutual respect (anarchy), and #2: some basic guidelines set by the constitutional referendums.

There are little to no laws restricting social or personal liberties.
There is some concept of human rights inherent in everything.
No standing armies.
Foreign relations conducted with an isolationist attitude, but always for the promotion of civil liberties, freedom from economic tyranny, and democracy for all peoples. Foreign aid is given on the basis of each little cooperative. There is a general cooperative assembly which occurs every few years (with the constitutional referendums), and there coordination between cooperatives would be established in such areas as foreign relations or foreign or internal aid.

It's all still vague, I guess, but it's been fun thinking about.

...

Well. Now that I've (briefly) thought through that, what's your particular flavor of anarchy or government? ... and how does it value resources?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Fair enough, although I'll note the circumstances were/are generally pretty fucked up to begin with in all those instances (re: South America).

In trying to figure out a resources model for my old idea, I scrapped it and came up with a new one...not really too sure if it's even anarchy anymore (something tells me no...), but whatever.

Spoiler

I actually like some elements of capitalism, so we'll keep a bit of it around, but tied to a cooperative system of production, in which the workers would own a factory, the farmers would all own the farm, the teachers would all own a private school (if one existed outside the state-funded schools), the scientists would all own their lab...also, "taxes" would be rather high, but instead of really going to a government they go local "government cooperatives" who would have a mandate to provide fresh water, electricity/energy, a basic level of food, clothing, shelter, roads/transport, school systems, construction services. All income would therefore be left over for "luxury" items, which would be produced within this cooperative economy. It would be a free-market economy between cooperatives, but at a small scale structural level must occur through the cooperative process, so sort of not. Induvidual government cooperatives can institute constitutional regulations within their very limited local areas should they so vote.

Such government cooperatives would be a rotating group of people, drawn dually from the heads of all the local economic cooperatives and representatives democratically elected from small local districts.

There would be a constitutional justice system, and a constitutional referendum would occur every few years. As to enforcement, there would be enforcement of whatever (minimal) laws exist by whatever means the local government-cooperative has decided upon, keeping in mind that the local-government cooperative is very nearly a direct democracy (it's very local), with an added layer of inter-locality relations occurring through #1: good-will and mutual respect (anarchy), and #2: some basic guidelines set by the constitutional referendums.

There are little to no laws restricting social or personal liberties.
There is some concept of human rights inherent in everything.
No standing armies.
Foreign relations conducted with an isolationist attitude, but always for the promotion of civil liberties, freedom from economic tyranny, and democracy for all peoples. Foreign aid is given on the basis of each little cooperative. There is a general cooperative assembly which occurs every few years (with the constitutional referendums), and there coordination between cooperatives would be established in such areas as foreign relations or foreign or internal aid.

It's all still vague, I guess, but it's been fun thinking about.

Yep, definitely not anarchy anymore.

It is some sort of Moaist-Yugoslav hybrid system. Interesting thing about the Yugoslav system, rhey realized communism did not work so they liberalized the market. Step by step they allowed citizens more economic freedom. This lead to an improvement of living standards of living. Citizens identified that more economic freedom lead to greater prosperity so they essentially demanded capitalism.

Here is an article: http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_6.pdf

I recommend you read 'Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth' by Mises.

Well. Now that I've (briefly) thought through that, what's your particular flavor of anarchy or government? ... and how does it value resources?

Anarco-capitalism. Markets value resources...

 

[Chronomar]

Yep, definitely not anarchy anymore.

It is some sort of Moaist-Yugoslav hybrid system. Interesting thing about the Yugoslav system, rhey realized communism did not work so they liberalized the market. Step by step they allowed citizens more economic freedom. This lead to an improvement of living standards of living. Citizens identified that more economic freedom lead to greater prosperity so they essentially demanded capitalism.

Here is an article: http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_6.pdf

I recommend you read 'Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth' by Mises.



Anarco-capitalism. Markets value resources...

I'll try to get the book when I'm back at college.

In the mean time, what about people?

I know as INTPs we're not supposed to make such considerations, but given such systems (or lack thereof) exist within the social structures of humanity, I suppose it is logical to make room for a little empathetic thought.

...so, how would such a capitalistic, and anarchistic, system value a human life?
...how would it give it rights (or not)?
...is that ethical?
...does it matter?
...does the increase in production I assume you think would occur from such a system outweigh the human costs? (this could make such a system 'worth it', but somehow I doubt reality, economic or otherwise, would oblige.)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I'll try to get the book when I'm back at college.

In the mean time, what about people?

I know as INTPs we're not supposed to make such considerations, but given such systems (or lack thereof) exist within the social structures of humanity, I suppose it is logical to make room for a little empathetic thought.

...so, how would such a capitalistic, and anarchistic, system value a human life?
...how would it give it rights (or not)?
...is that ethical?
...does it matter?
...does the increase in production I assume you think would occur from such a system outweigh the human costs? (this could make such a system 'worth it', but somehow I doubt reality, economic or otherwise, would oblige.)

1) Capitalism is the process of a free and voluntary exchange between individuals.
2) Anarchism means without rulers.

Morality and ethics are not endowed on society by a state or government. The development of morality and ethics is an emergent process which is governed by the way in which the majority of people decide to interact with one another.

By the way, capitalism had won the utilitarian debate many many years ago. The problem is that people seem to conflate market socialism, fascism and mercantilism (the systems we have today) with capitalism. Hence, they associate the negative properties of these systems to capitalism by a false line of reasoning.

 

[EditorOne]

"what will this entire shenanigan actually do and what will it actually affect?"

Directly, nothing. However the fear factor should not be underestimated. Even the most arrogant elitist plutocrat has visions of himself being torn limb from limb by a rampaging mob that identified him as part of the 1 percent. The oblique response will be placatory: Pseudo-reforms, re-instituted awareness that unemployment insurance really insures there won't be angry mobs of idle people ready to trash businesses, some firming up of social programs to keep the bottom of society someplace higher than desperate, etc. And the one percent may become slightly more circumspect about flaunting their wealth and, especially, their power.
Those with the most to lose also have the power to take the steam out of this, but it seems like maybe they ought to get cracking. We may have a professional army, but even they are all sons and brothers and sisters and daughters of what we're calling the "99"; a policeman's sense of duty is constrained these days by the reduction in pension benefits, frozen salaries, hiring freezes, and increased costs for health insurance compared to a CEO who gets a $10 million payout at retirement. In other words, if I were in the 1 percent, I wouldn't be too complacent right now about the loyalty of all who are supposed to protect my wealth.
Prediction: We will have a Kent State moment, at which the blood of protesters will be shed by emotionally overwrought defenders of the imaginary wonderful status quo, at which point real changes will be begin. It is widely forgotten, but that was a tipping point during the Vietnam turmoil, a moment that caused a great many people to say "OK, this is going too far, let's sort this out."
Or not, and we can set up guillotines on Wall Street and fill the gutters with the blood of Fortune 500 CEOs. I'm open to alternatives.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

^ We need to build a better guillotine.

 

[adda241]

completely in favor