Did You Vote Today?

Yeah, Shane, I see where you're coming from, but what do you do, individually to have things right for you, in a world that ISN'T really free?

I want to hear, because maybe if you can provide us with some examples it will make more sense on what we could do.

I understand your point, but I don't understand what else we are supposed to do about it.

Changing the way of our government is going to have to include the rest of the nation to agree, or the majority agree with that alternative, and I highly doubt that will change.

The vast majority of people, like having someone control something a bit, because not only do a lot of people crave structure, but most people in this country/world don't care to take on that kind of stress themselves.

I don't particularly care for 98% of the politicians that run for office, but then again, who am I to judge, I'm not paving the path to become a politician myself and change things; I'd rather not have that sort of stress in my life.

You have to realize that all these ideas in theory sound nice, as well as democracy has at one point and time, but we will NEVER reach an ideal government because stupid people will always exist. Assholes will always exist. Conservatives will always exist, etc.

You can't change things much while those kinds of people are still very prevalant amongst the human race, and you certainly can't expect them to be running around like wild apes doing whatever they please.

Democracy isn't all that pleasant a lot of times, but neither is any other option. And the reason it sucks isnt because of the "elites" its because of the stupid people that populate our world and agree on the issues and elections that turn our progress or stability around.

It's NOT always the officials fault.

 

I just gave you a list, do also need pictures?

Jesus christ, if you need every detail spelled out for you then maybe i understand why you would rather have someone else think for you.

 

All you listed was "TRUE FREEDOM"
"True freedom consists of:
Autonomous living
Consensus decision making
Local Activism
Direct Action Prop"

I"m not talking about FREEDOM because there is no such thing...how do you propose we start out the process. We can't go from A to Z unless you go through all the letters inbetween. I know you are not foolish enough to think that this can just happen tomorrow. There is a process and THAT is what I'm trying to get at.

Do YOU need pictures?

 

Here are some examples:


http://www.foodnotbombs.net/

http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

http://www.anti-politics.net/

 

LOL you gave me a list of organizations.

Talk about being a tool...you're just a tool for these organizations. Come up with your own ideas...what are YOU REALLY going to do about it?

BTW, FYI, I've been involved in Food Not Bombs, as well as Indymedia...

You don't impress me. These people involved with these organizations, don't act like you...at least the ones I've met.

 

No, there are not.

Here's a question, who is best able to decide what best for North Dakota?
People who live in North Dakota, California, New York or Ohio?

Why should I have any say over how a group of people on the other side of the continent live?

 

Act like what?

I gave you list of examples of orgs that operate as local autonomus groups working together in the least hierarchical fashion.

Working within their own communities to make actual change not elected promises of change.

 

Act a fool with socially unconscious terms such as "retarded" and calling someone a "tool".

The fact is, in this day and age EVERYTHING is connected. Look at environmental issues. A city dumping waste in a river isn't dangerous for that city, but look at what happens to the cities downstream. It can be detremental. YOu can apply that to everything. What is good for one area, might, in fact, affect other areas, in a negative way. So looking at it from a small perspective like one community isn't a good method of governing, imo.

 

i'm going to lunch, i'm starting to realize how much eduation i need to give the 2 of you, so when i get i'll start from the basics.

 

Talk about an elitist. WOWZA!

LOL I have a political science minor at the university...there isn't anything you will tell me that I haven't already heard...

 

Solidarity not decision making.

I support the efforts of the indigenous peoples of Oaxaca to run their lives.
The EZLN's acheivements in mexico is also a good example of what i am proposing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN#Political_initiatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLN#Ideology

 

You would think so, but here we are....

 

I haven't been inconsistant in what i've said.
The model of community activism and local autonomy practiced in Chiapas is a great model for other communities, i have no problem with working outside of a community as long as it does not involve abandoning the soveriegnty of the people being affected by the decisions made.

And i notice that you didn't say anything about the achievements made nor about my proposal to use that same model elsewhere.

 

Most likely the same way that the EZLN's "little community plans" are affecting Mexico as a whole. What is a nation but a group of communites absolving their responsiblites to their comminuties in favor of Federal hierarchical decision making.

1 community taking care of it's people might not have a huge impact, that is until neighboring communities start deciding to take care of their peoples.

anti-nationalization can be good for an entire nation by taking priority from the Nation(symbol) and readjusting it to the people(actually affected).

People not symbols.

Globalization can only be fought by focusing attention back onto the community one is a part of.

 

Sure, not a problem, as long as those communities are not forced to absolve their autonomy in order to work together.

think of it this way:

3 people are working on a project.
Now, you could have 1 person in charge of the other 2(through fear, vote, or assumed superiority) to tackle that problem. Certainly seems effecient on the surface, until the other 2 start to realize that they are committing time and effort while the "leader" is giving orders (hierarchcial).

Or each of the 3 involved keep their independence from each other while working in unison toward a shared goal, with a rotation of responsibilities to defend against specialization.

In the latter example all 3 get the benifits of working together and all 3 put in equal time and effort to accomplish the shared goal. Keep in mind that people tend to be more involved with decisions that directly affect them.

The people of North Dakota can work with the people of Ohio on a decision that affects both without abdicating their soveriegnty to a higher power or organization. Once goal is accomplished each group returns it's focus back to it's peoples. that way shared problems are addressed without causing further problems to develop do to the inability of reconciling the values and priorities of N.Dakota with the values and priorities of Ohio...

Red states can be red, blue states can be blue in accordance with the wishes of the people of the respective states.

Independence(and at times interdependence) is not in opposition to cooperation. But dependence can be and usually is, especially when that dependence is forced onto one involved party be another.

 

I guess that depends.

The methods used to come to a consensus is less important than the idea of consensus itself.

Also depends on the size of the communities involved.
One neighborhood working in conjunction with another neighborhood will use different methods than say a group of neighborhoods approaching another group of neighborhoods.

also depends on geographic region, i'm sure the peoples of S.Dakota have more issues that would need to be resolved with N.Dakota than say with the people of Massachusets.

When conservatives from kansas complain about being affected by laws set up by "coast liberals" and liberals in Massachusets complain about being affected by laws set up by "jesus land conservatives", they each have a valid point.

Gun issues in Nebraska are going to strike a different cord than gun issues in New York. Different demographics require different approaches and different solutions.

Why should one group bow to another when both sides have a legitimate say in how their respective regions operates? And why should either group be forced to compete their differing viewpoints in a strict federal system, each trying to "win" points instead of coming to a mutually benificial solution?

The current heirarchical system breeds and feeds competitiveness where cooperation would be so much more effective and less bitter.

In a system with competing special interests taking priotirty over the needs of the individuals involved no one ever wins.

everyone loses and the "moderator" gains ever so much more authority.

Which is exactly what the self-appointed judge wants, for us to compete with each other blu against red, liberal against conservative, rural against urban, all the while differing to the unassailable wisdom of the State(emphsis on the capital S).

 

I didn't dance around the issue at all, i gave you a very clear and defined answer.

non-heirarchical, consensus decision making, involving autonomous groups made up of those people directly affected by the outcome of the decisions made.

Not what we have now.

What we have now is:

hierarchically structured, competitive(51% majority driven) decision making, involving elitist special interests who dont care about the people affected anymore than what'll get them the next vote.

We need a system more like the EZLN and less like the FED USA...

 

again depends on the community.

You might as well ask me how 2 people resolve an issue of who's land a tree's branch's are on and how to resolve it, it's all up to the parties involved.

What conclusions they come to matter a lot less than the fact that it is done and organized in a non-hierarchical manner and a result of mutual consent by those involved and affected.

as far as what is a community, look it up guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community

I'll tell you one thing, New York and Wichita are not the same community.

 

Sure.

minus of course:
hierarchically organized institutions
representative democracy
political specialization