Forum Post: Life In A Post-OWS World
Posted 12 years ago on April 18, 2012, 4:15 p.m. EST by ThunderclapNewman
(1083)
from Nanty Glo, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In a post-OWS world remade by this movement, will it be egalitarian? How will under-achievers and neer-do-wells be dealt with? Will there still be a system of reward as motivation?
A true democracy will require that each citizen keep themselves informed and able to comprehend the ramifications of legislation we each will vote on. Will those who shirk their responsibilities be dealt with? If so, in what ways?
you guys act like OWS really is the 99%. except theres like 40% of people in this country who just think you are bunch of unemployed youth shitting in the street, hoping you dont have to get a job
Well j9, that means that 60% have some work to do in order to get the 40% on board, assuming your figures bear some credibility. Actually, there was an issue about OWS using public restrooms and how much it cost tax payers to maintain those restrooms. If there's an image of OWS defacating in public, it's either because access to those restrooms was cut off or the public perception is misguided and misinformed. I seem to recall OWS clean-up details occuring at Zuccotti Park; scrubbing walkways on hands and knees, garbage collection details, etc. I'd like to suggest that the notion of unemployed youth hoping they don't have to get a job is far-fetched. People came together and worked for a common purpose. They weren't afraid of hard work in the least. Still aren't!
dont worry. the real ows does not want some new world order. just some regulation on the !% to stop the income disparity so that the 99% can afford to live.
Who comprise the "Real OWS" then? Have you read minutes from the GAs? Have you been to GAs? There exists a great diversity of ideas. Are you thinking of the99%declaration?
There is no post OWS, the general assemblies will continue and communities will keep growing more connected and and more democratic and progressive.
I stand corrected, jph. Perhaps I should've written that when the current system falls away and we are in an OWS world, how will...
Well that depends, what would you like to see? We are proposing a participatory consensus democracy, we will solve these issues together or not at all.
You can't force people to become involved. If you try, they may go through the motions, but that certainly won't accomplish what you want or expect.
We're promoting a new and revolutionary way of living. There will be those who don't want to participate. There will be those who will continue to see greed as a positive attribute. Those folks will have to be dealt with. I'd like to know how that'll be done. I know I'm putting the cart in front of the horse here, but still I can't help but wonder.
Disciplinary issues would most likely depend on the exact type of society.
A ruler-less society based on a cellular model would probably attempt correction in the most benign way, much as present communes do by publicly shaming the person. If that failed, I imagine progressive levels of ostracism might be used.
Certain people will resort to criminal activities, regardless of the society. Still using the cellular model, punishment would be determined by the local cell.
No sense in getting too far ahead in hypotheses though. The first thing is to establish a new system, which means overturning the old--quite a chore on its own.
In my experience in free and open communities working through consensus, when people get out of line, the first tactic that works is simple social pressures. People asked nicely. If the offensive individual does not correct themselves, then we stop being so nice. They can become 'persona non grata', that is they are ostracized or banished. In a community where there is no 'official' police force everyone is responsible for security. People speak up for and defend their family, friends, and community, if an individual or group can not live up to community consensus they are dealt with by that community.
Are you still going to feed, clothe, and house these ne'erdowells if they are not responding to your dictates? You are just advocating a slightly more benign police state, even though you won't call it that. Rather than prisons, I assume you're going to beat people up or "banish" them, and by that I guess they're on their own, huh? How is that different than if we were to say to all the folks who don't pull their weight in our society today that they're banished. How about we say to all single mothers that keep having babies that they're banished? How about we say to absentee fathers who don't support their girlfriends/wives and kids that they're banished? They can go live under a bridge and die for all we care. You aren't setting up a "free" society in any sense of being free. You are only letting people be absolutely free to agree with the group and do as the group instructs. It'll be like a homeowners association on steroids. It so reminds me of the scene in the Sound of Music where the gestapo guy tells the family's "manager" that he's going to let the family sing in the festival because he wants to show the Austrian people that "absolutely nothing has changed". You'd like to do the same. You're still free, we are open, pay no attention to that group over there "dealing" with that guy. Well, consider me one of the nuns in that movie.
Well if you want to live in society, in a social group, and benefit from that groups efforts, then you must work with that group, and within the acceptable social norms of the group. There are no 'dictates' there is consensus, you are encouraged to voice your opinions and concerns, to help shape this consensus in your community, but one does not get the right to impose their will on others. There is but one simple rule; harming no one do as you will.
If some individual or group has a problem not harming others then they are indeed going to be dealt will. It is not that different from the system the state imposes currently, only the community decides how to deal with the harming influence.
Do you have a better idea?
Yeah. Our current system, with all its flaws. You can come up with new words like consensus that sound good but mean little. We already have a system that basically tells people they have to live within certain social norms if they want to benefit. Actually, we don't really. They can really do not much of anything and still benefit. You are talking about "harming" people, but the original discussion was how to deal with people who didn't go along with the consensus. If you're talking about physical harm, fine. But I don't think you are. I think you're talking about a nebulous, different kind of harm that we currently don't "deal with" because people are free. You would have the same choice to make as we currently do if someone , for instance, decided they wanted to sit on their ass and let the rest of the group work, but they still wanted you to feed and house them. Maybe you try the shunning route and feed and house them, but otherwise ignore them. I don't know. But We already have a system where the "community" (i.e. elected leaders enacting legislation that the "community" as a whole deems unacceptable) does this with physical harm, and it's called the judicial system and prison. What you don't really seem to realize is that a sytem like your would only work with fairly small groups of people, without getting very top-down heavy with rules, dictates, and new "norms" of consensus. 300 million people? Consensus? Are you kidding?
[Removed]
[Removed]
OWS is here to actually accomplish something? That idea frightens me too much to even contemplate it. ;)
Change is, for many, a scary prospect. Not changing things is frightening to me. :-)