When the Governed Don't Consent

NOTE: This discussion was originally classified as "hosted" but has now been moved to the "member initiated" category.  In the view of the OC Stewards, what is taking place here is a debate rather than dialogue.  In a "hosted" discussion here at OC.org, we request that balanced participation be encouraged and that regular summaries occur recognizing all the views being presented.  

While we have no objections to people using the OC forum to engage in debates, as long as they don't cross the line into personal attacks, such discussion is not what we are seeking in the "hosted" category.  

Ben Roberts
12/31/11

We are delighted to have Occupy Cafe member Mark E. Smith offer this hosted discussion on the provocative idea of an "election boycott."  

As "host," Mark will strive to keep the conversation orderly, offer regular summaries of the perspectives being presented and encourage balanced participation among all those who are engaged.  Here's Mark's initial summary:

An election boycott is the only known way to nonviolently delegitimize a government. It doesn't overthrow the government, it simply denies it the consent of the governed so that the government can no longer claim to have the people's consent. Among the many forms of noncompliance, such as removing money from big banks, boycotting corporate brands, withdrawing from the system and creating alternative systems, learning to live on less so as not to have to pay taxes, etc., refusing to vote can be one of the most crucial and effective tactics.

Thank you, Mark, for volunteering your services as "host!"

Views: 4518

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 14, 2011 at 12:04am

Also, find Occupy Congress on Facebook, and Occupy Rigged Elections, and also there is a new group calling themselves the Occupation Party, you can Google them.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 14, 2011 at 12:32am

I hope the Anons trace and DOX the owners of those websites. I'd be very interested in seeing who they are and who they're politically connected to.

I made a sardonic comment some time back that people Occupy Prisons. They could start by occupying local jails, move on to occupying supermax prisons, and end up occupying Guantanamo and CIA secret prisons overseas. If Occupy managed to get enough people into the prisons, milllions and millions of people, surely they could bring about change from within? That was not meant to be taken seriously, Victoria. My point, however poorly I expressed it, is that some places shouldn't be Occupied, and that among those places are prisons, Congress, and rigged elections. Corrupt institutions should be removed from power, not Occupied. Why not Occupy the 1%? Surely if enough Occupiers became billionaires and trillionaires themselves, they could change the system where money rules by having the money to rule?

Sigh.....

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 10:48pm

Forgive me for interjecting, Victoria, but not only did a concerted massive electoral insurgency in the US attempt to seize the controls of the ship, but it succeeded.

At one point the Democratic party owned the whole system. They had the White House, they had a majority in the House of Representatives, and they had a majority in the Senate. There was no possible effective opposition remaining. And nothing changed. They continued the destructive policies for which they had always blamed the Republicans. They are still continuing to cater to the 1%, and they always will, no matter how many people vote for them or how much power they have. They have stated quite clearly and openly that they, the Democrats, do not allow public opinion to influence policy decisions. Neither do the Republicans. Neither could any third party that took power within our system of representative government, because representation is a form of centralized power and power corrupts. That's why some people would prefer decentralized power, because you can corrupt some of the people some of the time, you can corrupt some of the people all of the time, but you cannot corrupt all of the people all of the time.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 13, 2011 at 11:04pm

Why do you consistently assume I support the Democrats or any party as it stands today? Why would you assume I want to see the proliferation of the same corruption? Am I here, part of Occupy, because I want that? Really?

Representation should come from local community democracy. Consensus is not new, it exists in town hall meetings in communities already, and has for a long time. An educated, engaged populace should be talking together in town halls about the issues that matter to their communities. Their elected representatives should be crafting legislation that reflects the will of the people. Taxes should be gathered for the benefit of the people, to build public works and infrastructure that serves communities. No money should corrupt the representative process. Corporate governance and charters should be rewritten, back to the original rules that kept them in check long ago.  And of course, elections should be clean and honest, counted in public.

If all of this happened, I do not think we'd have too much trouble with representative government, especially not now when we have the Internet and much more access to government proceedings.

There are many decent people who would be real public servants. 

You point to a decentralized system as some kind of panacea, but Mark, there is no way to reach consensus with all people, all the time, everywhere. There has to be a different way, and electing people to be arbitors of the public's will is the only way we've figured out. 

The Democrats taking the majority is not the kind of electoral insurgency I'm talking about. I'm talking about  REAL one, where people are running on the kind of platform being solidified now in groups and movements all over the country.

Barack Obama may have won support with false progressive rhetoric, but now everyone understands he was beholden to his corporate backers. That's the structural dysfunction we have needed to address forever, but we're only waking up to it now -- BECAUSE of the massive Democratic "betrayals" -- which are only betrayals if you ever believed them, and didm't understand the nature of the corporate system.

You yourself should be able to see how people are finally waking up to the need to change the whole structure of the system. Why, now, would you be advocating against that and telling people it's hopeless and that they should just drop out? 

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 11:33pm

I'm not sure I understand, Victoria. If an "educated, engaged populace should be talking together in town halls about the issues that matter to their communities," why shouldn't they themselves, instead of their elected representative craft legislation that reflects their will, vote on such legislation, and enact such legislation? Why do they need to elect representative to do it for them?

I didn't assume that you're a Democrat, I just pointed out that the Democrats already accomplished exactly what you said had never been tried, an electoral insurgency to seize control of the ship, and they succeeded. I also said that in a representative form of government, seizure of the ship by Democrats, Republicans, or even a third party such as an Occupy Wall Street Party, would still result in power being vested in the hands of representatives rather than in the hands of the people. Since there have to be fewer representatives than there are people, it is much easier to corrupt the few than the many, and, in fact, is is impossible to corrupt everyone.

I have never told people that it is hopeless or that they should just drop out. Why do you say that? Can you point to anyplace where I ever said or implied any such thing? I believe that direct democracy is something that can put an end to corruption in government and that we should participate in any and all efforts toward establishing a direct democracy. If I thought that it was hopeless or that people should drop out, I wouldn't be encouraging people to stop supporting an undemocratic form of government and start supporting a democratic form of government.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 13, 2011 at 11:47pm

The reasons why people should not craft and vote on all legislation include (off the top of my head):

* Most people don't want to

* Many people can't -- they don't have the time or energy to be so involved

* Many people don't have enough expertise in important areas to really be making sound decisions -- certainly not in all areas. That's why representatives who should be working for the people consult with experts. We should have intelligent representatives who consult with good people for the right reasons.

* We don't just live on the village or town level. Our world is orders of magnitude more complex now, and involves high technology, shared energy and resources, and international relations. We use elected representatives and ambassadors to communicate and agree on policies. That is not going to change.

* Some things, like taxes and budgets, need some kind of centralized control and planning, or you have the clusterfuck that just happened in California with their ballot initiatives. You can't just have everyone voting for what they want without understanding what everyone else is doing. There has to be some controls on the system.

And you can't have voluntary taxes. You either have taxes or you don't. Society doesn't work like that. No one will want that. I don't want that. It doesn't make sense. 

And finally, as I've stated many times and of which you take umbrage, there are just too many crazy people. I do not want a direct democracy system with so many crazy, ignorant, fanatical people. I want decent representatives who have proven worthy of their office. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable.

And yes, you have said the system of representation is hopelessly corrupt and people should just drop out. I am arguing that we have a chance, maybe just one, in 2012, to change that, and we should do our best to work together toward that end.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 14, 2011 at 12:06am

Victoria, you can't assume that most people don't want to, or don't have the time and energy to be involved unless you ask them. I imagine that, if asked, most people would prefer to donate a portion of their time to accomplish things they want, instead of being forced to pay a portion of their income to support things they do not want and have no say in.

According to a Rasmussen poll, most voters believe that people chosen randomly from the phone book could do as good a job as Congress. I think people chosen randomly from the phone book could do a better job than Congress, without having any particular expertise, experience, or consultants, for the simple reason that people who are listed in the phone book are people who paid their phone bill. Since Congress can't pay its bills, not even when using other people's money, I am absolutely certain that people chosen randomly from the phone book would prove more competent than Congress.

It is true that we don't just live on the village or town level. We are no longer in the horse and buggy days. We don't need centralized government the way that we did when it took covered wagons months to get from one part of the country to another. 

The California initiative process was corrupted by big money. By getting big money out of politics, and establishing a process of direct democracy, decisions with regard to budgets and taxes would no longer be controlled by big money interests and would no longer be made solely to benefit big money interests.

If you can't have voluntary taxes, then most churches and charities don't exist and couldn't possibly exist. Most of them do not command their adherents to tithe or donate on penalty of being imprisoned if they don't, and rely on voluntary donations. Yet many have flourished for hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years.

As one of the crazy people you fear, one of those who has never proven worthy of office, I would go so far as to suggest that your fears are misplaced, and that every single item on the Occupy Wall Street List of Grievances came to pass due to legislation enacted by decent representatives who were and/or still are generally considered to be sane and worthy of office.

And thank you for engaging in civil discussion of the issue.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 14, 2011 at 12:14am

Ok, well, I just don't agree with anything here. At all. Not one point. And if I were to deal with each point, I would write another 5 page message, and I just can't keep doing this. It's amazing how much time I'm devoting to this dialog as it is, and I have so much work piling up, I'm starting to have anxiety. I'm going to have to disable the email feature here notifying me when people respond to me, because I keep coming back when I see a message.

Time, once again, to move on. I agree to disagree with you Mark, and I wish you the best in continuing your dialog with other people on this site.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 13, 2011 at 10:53pm

One of the best community organizers of all time, Saul Alinsky, wrote a book called Rules for Radicals, in which one of his main points is, start where you are.

We have to start with reality as it is, not as we wish it were. We have to be savvy enough to understand where people are in their thinking, so we can work with them.

How can we call ourselves the 99% and advocate for fringe solutions? I personally would like to advocate for a whole host of reforms I know don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding in this world. I've had to become a realist. Because I want to win.

To me, winning now only means a leveling of the playing field so that we can have real democratic discussion and debate, so that we can know the will of the people by having real elections, so we can approximate a real system of truly representative government that serves the needs of communities, not the military industrial complex. We should be talking about proportional representation as well. That is an idea many people might support.

I think I would put a bullet in my head, or just run away to an island somewhere, if we lose this war because we get hijacked by extremists from within who derail our efforts.

And I say this coming from a background of relative extremism personally. I have very extreme ideas. But I keep them to myself and do the best I can in the real world, so I can be effective, and be of real service. Maybe one day humanity will know something like real peace, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 11:05pm

If you wish to start with reality, Victoria, perhaps you could start by recognizing that only about 50% of the US electorate has any faith in representative government.

In the only poll that ever asked them, since most pollsters hang up on people who aren't registered voters, a majority of those who don't vote said that their reason for not voting is that they don't believe that anyone on the ballot would represent them. I'm one of those people and I don't believe that anyone seeking political power within the system would or could represent those who don't want power over others and don't want others having power over them. 

Rather than engaging in power struggles, we would prefer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, where power was vested in the hands of the people, distributed equally among the people, and not distributed unequally so that some have more power than others. 

That may seem extremist and impractical to you, but it is the dream of at least 50% of the US electorate--those of us who don't vote--and we are not a fringe minority.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 13, 2011 at 11:19pm

This is where your arguments get circular. 

Yes, people don't have faith in the system, because it is corrupt. What I am saying, and I think rather clearly, is that we now have an opportunity to address the system problems leading to the corruption. If that was done, more people would engage in the system and believe in it, because they would see it working. 

Also I disagree that there are no people who would or could represent you. There are decent people in office now, and many more who would take positions if the process wasn't controlled by needing millions to enter the race.

There is absolutely no way to avoid power struggles, and that's where your argument fails, for me. "Rather than engaging in power struggles" you say. That is like offering some kind of magic pill that makes the bad stuff go away forever. I mean, it's not reality. There will always be power struggles, especially once you start demanding that everyone reach consensus! Then there will just be power lock-down. At least, that is my strong belief. I don't see the Tea Party folks and the wealthy corporatists coming to consensus with OWS any time soon.

Proportional representation may be a good model for a government where power is equally distributed. 

But the truth is, until we get corporate power under control, nothing will change. 

Btw -- what makes you think that people themselves can't be bought off in a direct democracy to vote for evil interests? 

You have this beautiful faith in "the people" when meanwhile so many of us are just so effing ignorant. I would rather be represented by someone like Elizabeth Warren any day of the week than have my fate directly in the hands of the zealots and war mongers and racists in this country.

Also, I don't vote either, Mark. Not yet. I have never once voted. I am not registered to vote. Because I grew up understanding how rigged the system is. But now I see a chance to address the core issues of how its rigged, and I know that aside from their despondency over our corrupt Republic, most people do NOT want a consensus based system, so I figure we have one shot -- 2012. I will support all insurgent candidates and all anti-corporatists candidates, and all Occupy candidates, while I do my work educating and organizing for hand counted paper ballots. I will do my best.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 11:48pm

Yes, Victoria, I agree that there are good people, and that they might be able to accomplish something if the process wasn't controlled by money.

But the process is controlled by money, and magical thinking can't change that.

Sure, some people could be bought off in a direct democracy, but in a direct democracy everyone has an equal vote, so they couldn't control the process.

Yes, there are zealots, war mongers, and racists in this country. There are also zealots, war mongers, and racists in Congress, and they constitute a majority against which Elizabeth Warren and other good people would be powerless in a system of majority rule.

You are correct that, "...until we get corporate power under control, nothing will change."

Do you imagine that electing Elizabeth Warren, Norman Soloman, and a few dozen hypothetical Occupy Wall Street candidates would get corporate power under control? JFK tried. Paul Wellstone tried. Many others also tried. It isn't the players that must change, it is the system that must change so that we can have a level playing field. You were correct about not voting in rigged elections, as you'll find out when you try it. 

I'm sorry that the excitement of the possibility of having a few good people inside a thoroughly rotten government has caused you to forget what your father and uncle taught you. I look forward to seeing your posts in 2013, when you'll have realized that they were right all along.

RSS

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

Mondays
"Vital Conversations" 
8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"
1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT

Thursdays
"Occupy Heart" 
3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
0 Comments
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Welcome Them!
Vic Desotelle posted a group
Thumbnail

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
0 Comments
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post

radio recording: Occupy movement and the Future of Capitalism and Democracy

Feb 3, 2012
0 Comments

Blog Posts

Tamera for Tomorrow: A Model for the 99% and Creating Just and Environmentally Sustainable Communities

Posted by Burl Hall on September 18, 2015 at 11:55am 0 Comments

Please remove me from your emal list: I am not interested in receiving info from you

Posted by Richard Kreidler on September 15, 2015 at 10:09pm 1 Comment

New Economy Conference

Posted by Aria Littlhous on October 2, 2013 at 5:49am 0 Comments

Does anyone know anything about this group?

Posted by Aria Littlhous on September 12, 2013 at 7:29pm 0 Comments

The Reconomy Global Timebank

Posted by Kevin Parcell on September 11, 2013 at 12:56pm 0 Comments

Members

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service