Occupy Idiocy

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:59 am

Unless your kid is as big as a truck or crane don't even think of doing this:
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/14/occu ... -portland/
Here's why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQHLthLL ... re=related
All my railroader freind would really like it if you don't play on the tracks.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:05 am

I do understand that people are angry, I really do. I mean the government sold them out to the bankers who then paid themselves large bonuses and so on. Certainly reason for anger. The occupy movement however is IMHO not the right way to vent that anger. Rather make a new political party (a real one) and kick the treacherous assholes out of the office!

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:43 am

Creating a new political party is a lot of (probably fruitless) work. I advocate an easier approach:

"My current political debating tack is to argue no elected federal politician should be re-elected for the span of about a generation. With no chance of re-election our politicians would not have to raise funds for the next campaign and might concentrate on doing the people's business. Surely among 330 million people we can find fewer than a thousand every few years to keep the Republic going strong?"

viewtopic.php?t=2923&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:33 pm

I think without a chance of reelection, they will have even less incentive to keep their promises and do what is best for the people instead what is best for their pockets.
I have sometimes wondered whether it would be a good idea to completely get rid of private campaing sponsoring (aka bribing and lobbying) and instead provide them with the financing by some other means.
Or require contributions to be annonymous or something like that.
The current method of campaign financing is bound to lead to corruption.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:56 pm

Skipjack wrote:I think without a chance of reelection, they will have even less incentive to keep their promises and do what is best for the people instead what is best for their pockets.

And such short-term gains would be more easily detected. Oh, I admit I am depending on the goodness of at least a majority of the elected officials, but the minority still cause a lot of trouble (see the 90-10 rule).

We still haven't figured out how to finance our political campaigns and preserve our Republic. I often advocate randomness to keep things interesting, perhaps we should, every four years, gamble to choose the next method of campaign finance to reduce the damage done by any one kind...hmm.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:26 pm

Hey, allow me to vote AGAINST the ones I dislike too. The ballot should look something like:

[Ballot]
CHOOSE ONE

_ FOR--------\
---------------->---Joe Thief
_ AGAINST--/

_ FOR--------\
---------------->---JoBeth Villien
_ AGAINST--/
[/Ballot]

Then add all the "FOR"s, subtract all the "AGAINST"s, and the one who has the greatest positive (or least negative?) wins.

The main point though is that third party and independant candidates will have a MUCH better chance of winning. Act badly in office and you may find folks voting AGAINST you.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:15 pm

Kite, you have got a good idea there! It would give those with a smaller campaign budget, like independents a better chance!

And such short-term gains would be more easily detected. Oh, I admit I am depending on the goodness of at least a majority of the elected officials, but the minority still cause a lot of trouble (see the 90-10 rule).

Have you read the news lately? 90% of your senators just voted for a bill that will allow those in power to put regular people away indefinitely, without trial for reasons as small as having more than seven days worth of food at home, or more than two rifles, or ammunition that is waterproof, or maybe having a neighbour that does not like your face...

The fact that wallstreet is not in jail by now completes my case...

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:36 pm

Skipjack wrote:Have you read the news lately? 90% of your senators just voted for a bill that will allow those in power to put regular people away indefinitely, without trial for reasons as small as having more than seven days worth of food at home, or more than two rifles, or ammunition that is waterproof, or maybe having a neighbour that does not like your face...

I recommend ExLax, Skipjack. It will help you with your problem.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:02 pm

I recommend ExLax, Skipjack. It will help you with your problem.

??

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:23 pm

Skipjack wrote: Have you read the news lately? 90% of your senators just voted for a bill that will allow those in power to put regular people away indefinitely, without trial for reasons as small as having more than seven days worth of food at home, or more than two rifles, or ammunition that is waterproof, or maybe having a neighbour that does not like your face....

Can you tell us what you're referring to? Is this hyperbole or do you really believe a law was passed that could be so abused?

choff · Post by **choff** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:33 pm

One of the organizing priciples of the occupy movement is having no leadership or formalized objectives. They've seen too many movements get infiltrated and highjacked by special interest groups and are trying to avoid same. This creates the problem of no strategy or definable objectives emerging. What they do manage is to demonstrate the general sense of injustice in the current system.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:52 pm

Further on the case for randomness: Perhaps we should take a page from William F. Buckley and submit to rule by the first one hundred names in the New York City telephone book.

I like the (dis) organizational principle of the Occupy Movement.

@Skipjack, what makes you think a third party organized these days would not be subverted by the incumbent parties?

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:24 pm

This idea might work as well:

Utah Lawmaker Resigning Due to Fundraising Ban

(AP) SALT LAKE CITY — A law prohibiting fundraising during Utah's legislative session has at least one Republican resigning his post and another considering stepping down instead of challenging the ban, as candidates have successfully done in other states.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162- ... ising-ban/

choff · Post by **choff** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:44 pm

At one time over 100 years ago it was considered inappropriate for candidates to leave home and stump for votes, or spend any money at all on election campaigns. There's a SF book called 'Solar Lottery' that used randomness to pick leaders.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:58 pm

GIThruster wrote:Can you tell us what you're referring to? Is this hyperbole or do you really believe a law was passed that could be so abused?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8

I started a thread about this here:
viewtopic.php?t=3457