Who wants to do what?

This poll is to determine how many of us want to do what. Our mission or missions so to speak. It is also a polling experiment. If you don't like the options presented, please check "other" and write in your suggestion in the discussion area. Then I will rewrite the poll and we will vote again.

Ray, could you provide a brief explanation of National Support Group? Thanks.
-Paul

Sure Paul. I see a national support group as a place where people can meet up with others sharing a similar goal. A place where they can discuss their options, with a good voting system to help them make decisions.

The focus of such a group would primarily be to help with the formation of other action groups.

I vote for both support group and petition. I think the group has laid the beginning of a groundwork for both.
Johanna

Everything but the third party but mostly an experiment in online democracy, all my life I've dreamed of this even before the internet was born(I thought we could use tv remotes) but when things were going well I could see that my fantasys were not as far fetched as I thought. But it can only really be developed by working on a real project and it don't come much more real than this,20 big topics subdivided into 2 hundred or more policy initiatives which would radically alter the politics of the entire globe!! That's some heavy sh,t as cheech and chong would say

Third party? Would it be more like an 7th party?

honestly.. I don't know... but I do firmly believe that if anything is going to actually get implemented it needs the support of the Occupy movements...

and for that to happen most of these discussions need to be done on the Occupy forums in solidarity with the movement ... otherwise we simply have 5000 or so supporters .. which won't get anywhere...

It's very difficult to get another political party going in the U.S. That's why they Tea Party didn't try it. I think we should get a list of grievances and make sure everyone in the government, from those in office to those running for office, to those serving in other capacities, like cabinet members and supreme court justices. This way, they can all see where we stand, and what we want.

I don't really think it's our job to come up with solutions. Our 'leaders' and the people who want to be our 'leaders' claim they have the solutions, so they should work towards that. Our job is to put people in office who will best represent us and what we believe.

I do like what the Tea Party did in the last election. Those who they felt did not represent them were challenged in their primaries. A good group of those who did not measure up to Tea Party standards were voted out, and a Tea Party candidate was put up in the general election. We can do this too, on both sides of the aisle.

To start a third party, we would need individuals already in office to move to our party. There is a large group that calls itself the progressive caucus, that might be willing to drop their party and join a Progressive Party.

Now I will go and vote in the poll, I will vote 'other'. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I would change the Grievances item to Manifesto, both for PR reasons as well as purpose. A manifesto based on a populist agenda has the ability to gain support across the political spectrum. Our strength is in numbers and should never focus on division, but instead to allow anyone to align with specific ideas.

It can be used as a measuring stick against an elected official's record in order to show which officials are truly representing the people versus a narrow group of wealthy constituents.

And just as folks like Grover Norquist hold candidates feet to the fire on tax policy, a manifesto can be used to lever a better discussion of the real issues during campaigns instead of typical nonsense.

And to further the idea of "sub-parties", a manifesto (versus an actual party) allows a large group of the population to demand a representative candidate whether Republican or Democrat, meaning our group could primary either side. Coming to terms with the reality of 99 is going to be hard for many, but a lot of folks currently misaligned with faux populism will want and need to be part of what is coming.

I haven't figured out yet who we ARE! I joined because I thought we were part of the Occupy movement, but I suspect I was misled. SERIOUSLY misled.

How about we figure out what in the hell we stand for before we do anything else. As far as I can tell, most everyone here (except me and one or two others) are socialist, communist, marxist or progressives. I know that OWS is trying to be everything to everyone, but I think until we figure out who we are we will never come to a consensus. I, a Libertarian, CANNOT EVER under ANY circumstances support socialism so if that's what you guys are shooting for, I'm outta here. If it's NOT what You (we) are about, how about putting some "labels" on yourselves so I know what I'm dealing with here.

I like everything except creating a third party. Top priority should be a national general assembly. We need to start some discussion about what the basics are that we want. My guess is this group runs the gambit of libertarian to socialist and everything in between so agreeing isn't going to be easy.

While I was writing this another post came in from a libertarian which I read before posting so I am adding the following to my post.

The libertarian said he had no common ground and would never find one with a socialist. Well I am a socialist who is exploring the zeitgeist movement a new idea which the poster may see as even further to the left. I'm willing to talk to libertarians but not if it will degenerate to name calling and I will have to admit I'd probably have to control my tendency to get angry just as much as anyone else but from the libertarians posts he would not be willing to do that. If I wrong I invite the poster to correct me.

Anyway based on that post I have to state even more firmly that we need to see if we can come to some agreement about basics or there is no point in moving forward. If we start that discussion online then we will have to beware of trolls who will join the forum simple to be disruptive.

We are all trying to not mislead anyone these days. I think what we are right now is simply a place for open discussion and exchange of ideas about how we can effect change in our society for the betterment of all of us (99%).

Over the weekend, this place got turned upside down when the founder, Michael P, decided not to cooperate with the group anymore. He is the original 99% Delegation guy and has his own website and FB page now (the99declaration.org).

We are discussing ways to proceed and learning from each other, both opinions and methods of operation, but haven't quite settled on a definite direction. Another web-site is in the planning stages.

That's the best I can offer right now.

-Paul

Under Reagan, I was a Republican. I stayed a Republican until they put the 2nd Bush up for President. I couldn't believe that was the best the party had, and if that was who they chose, I won't be a part of it. I changed to Independent, but the independents go no where. When Obama ran, I supported him and campaigned for him. I was selected to be a National Convention Selection Delegate at the Kentucky Democratic Party 2008 State Convention. A couple days before I attended, I changed to a Democrat, thinking I should since I was part of the convention.

Now, I'm a progressive, and a social libertarian. I don't understand why Republicans what a smaller, next to no government to control corporations, but a massive government to control what an individual does in his/her pvt life.

I call myself a progressive because both of the major parties disappoint me. They are all bought and paid for, and they represent those with the money, not those with the votes. I would like to change that. I support the OWS movement.

Exactly rborskie. To me when the Republicans call for less government (government of for and by the people) they seem to be calling for less control by the people, which will benefit corporations, or the the 1%.

At the same time, they call for bigger and bigger defense budgets. So who and what are they protecting?

I consider myself progressive, but what I really want right now is true democracy in this country, and the world. I don't see either major party representing that, not in the least.

Interesting rborskie that you call yourself a social libertarian. I never heard that term before and it might not be as much of an oxymoron as social anarchist to which I have refereed to myself at time. I wonder if by the we see the need for control on the economic sphere to make things equatable for everyone but believe in personal freedom as long as we do not harm another.

I don't have much time to reply, I think anything short of a total redesign of our government will fail. Using history only as a guide we need to really look at what makes people tick and what type of government is the best now in these modern times.

For the most part we all have been lied to and sold a bunch of crap when it comes to the history of this country. For all I know we are a corporate entity, a wholly owned subsidiary of England, but who knows what the real story is? If you look at how this government behaves I would say we are an Authoritarian Fascist Democratic Republic The Powers That Be just fail to mention the first two.

So I say scrap it all and build something from scratch that honors humanity and protects the environment without depriving anyone. Doing away with outdated dogmatic notions of founding fathers and original intent of the constitution because it's all opinionated bullshit anyway. Anything less then complete interdependence and peaceful coexistence without false dichotomies and irrelevant labels would be a continued failure of our species.

Seth

I once knew someone, long ago, who had written A Declaration of Interdependence.

sethrosen, I agree that scraping what we have and starting fresh would be the best idea. That would take a lot of support. Not sure if we can muster enough support but it certainly should be put on the table as a discussion item.

I think it would be very hard to present a third party alternative - it would very likely lose. I propose that there should be an active focus on all the congressional and senate seats that will be up for voting in 2012. The Tea Party did this and were successful. It is important that before that there is a manifesto to which the OWS backed representatives would adhere and agree to, otherwise it will be difficult to function as a bloc if they are wildly successful and are elected.

I am not very optimistic honestly - it will take a lot of selflessness and sacrifice to overcome the odds of beating the system.

I joined this because I would like for this government to return to the ideals set up during its foundation. I suspect many of us are looking for similar things. "In order to form a more perfect union." But, I am very uncomfortable with placing labels on myself. I am human and an American with an uncompromising loyalty to the truth and the right everyone has for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I believe many roads can lead to the preservation of those rights. My loyalty is towards any road that is effective in practice. Theories are for philosophers and good conversations with friends.

I'm interested in a national general assembly. A list of grievances has been done, by both the general assembly of OWS and the 99% Declaration group. I would suggest the assembly create key demands and explain why these are necessary to change the system. IMHO, the whole point of the Occupy movement is to create a worldwide teach-in, where we can discuss, educate, and refine our approach.

Thank you all for voting in the poll and expressing your concerns.

I'll give the poll a few more days and then try to include the new suggestions and rewrite some options to accommodate everyone.

Thus far I have only sent personal invitations to 150 of our members. I have to do this one at a time so it will take some time to get more votes.

On the next round I will eliminate the "other" write in option so we can get a better view of the remaining options.

The constitution promises freedom, but it doesn't mention anything about the economy, except that we will pay our bills. A democracy is a political system, the Free Market is an economic system. They are not the same, and there was never a promise from our founding fathers promising a Free Market System. I think they did that because they've seen in the past that those with the most money take control and manipulate, so they offer a vote to every citizen, and not just the land owners. It seems our economic and political systems have gotten mixed up. 94% of the politicians who spend the most money end up winning.

As for individuals, yes, do what you want, just don't hurt anyone else. Don't kill other people, don't hit them or rape them. Don't steal from them or belittle their reputations. All these things hurt other people. As long as you're not doing those, then you should be good.

You shouldn't have to worry about the law, or about your neighbors pushing bills banning your actions because they don't coincide with your own actions. If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry someone who's the same sex as you. If you're against abortion, don't get one. If you're against drugs, don't do drugs. If you don't believe Islam is the proper religion for you, then don't worship Allah. It's very simple, just let adults live their lives the way they want to, as long as they don't push it on you.

I voted for support group, but in all honesty, everything but "third party" I could agree with.

Personally I don't care if you're anarcho-capitalist (free market libertarian), anarcho-syndicalist (libertarian socialist), socialist, Marxist, Nazi, any point in between, or a guy that thinks all of our national decisions should be made with a magic 8-ball.

The underlying problem right now is that all of us, regardless of political stripe HAVE NO VOICE unless someone on this board is a bank CEO. Any wedge you can find serves no one except those at the top.

A third party won't solve anything, because win or lose, you're back to 2 big tent parties instead of an accurate reflection of what the people actually want.

If you want the country to go for X principals, fine, create an open party proportional representation list and find out who else agrees with you. Smash all barriers to voting for anyone that has a right to franchise.

aliendancer:
There's a long history of (generally) economic left libertarianism, it became especially prevalent after WW2 with the fall of fascism. Right-libs aren't fascists of course, but seeing how corporatism could destroy a state and gain enormous power made people flinch. (like we're seeing here now) The only thing libertarians of any stripe have in common is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the authority to explain why it should have power. The same reasons a left-libertarian would be for a national healthcare system is the same reason another libertarian (left or right) could be against abortion. The end result is to maximize liberty and debt slavery or removing a child's chance to live is seen as an attack on the victims by someone else's power.

I always thought an interesting way to describe corporations was Chomsky's: "An unaccountable private tyranny."

If you're interested in different stripes of libertarianism I suggest looking outside the US, where the Cold War created a unique stripe that conflated economic issues with social issues. The highly socialized Nordic models are a good place to start as they enjoy great economic and social liberties.

The bulk of the groundwork for either stripe comes from John Stuart Mills "On Liberty". It's definitely worth a read, but keep in mind he wrote it in the 1800s, a lot has changed since then. Even his own thoughts changed in his time regarding some things. He was also one of the first feminists He had no concept of a corporation in its current sense, he was for inheritance tax, he had no concept of health care, let alone a national healthcare system. So when you read him keep in mind that while some of his ideas are timeless, like any philosopher, other elements of his writings are firmly entrenched in their time and have no place in a modern society.

Others have picked up his torch to deal with current questions, but the main yardstick by which anything is measured is what he called the "harm principal"

If your Google Fu is decent you should end up with more searching than you probably want on the subject

I voted for support group as well, because I believe that we need this type of foundation before anything else can occur. This will become an assembly just through its mere existence. If we choose to further that goal into some other organization, such as an election of delegates, meeting at an actual location, thats fine. I think the fact that Occupy is a physical meeting of people and minds is what gives it such merit. You will probably need both. Finally, the outcome of all of this must be demands that the people lay at the door of our government. What they choose to do with it determines our next move. Some sort of political party may be the last option.

But first things first.

-Paul