Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Referendum: the best solution for any argument

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 10, 2013, 11:08 a.m. EST by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The last few weeks I have become somewhat disillusioned by the discussions on this forum.

Most notably, the gun debate has gone out of control. The debate is emotional and not rational. TPTB have nothing to fear from OWS in this way.

Assuming that we live in a democracy, the majority should rule. So, if the majority of Americans wants to keep their guns, then it should be that way.

If the majority wants to ban guns or specific types of guns then it should be that way.

Likewise any other hot argument can be decided in this way.

Assuming that there is a 99% then the 99% will win any referendum. I see no revolution coming in Switzerland.

31 Comments

31 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by c1b3rshad3 (32) from Ramseur, NC 1 year ago

I am new here and I agree that the gun debate seems to be out of control. Its actually quite unattractive (to me at least).

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

WOW- I will try to be polite
This post is disgusting
Did it ever occur to you that "final solution" is not a term that needs to be used here? disgusting
Majority rule - the majority of Americans believe in the death penalty - is that good?
the majority of Americans are Christian - should that be the only religion?


our country must be based on how we protect the minority from the majority


national binding legal resolutions do not exist - and could only exist if a constitutional amendment allowed it - fortunately

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

I guess the words in the title were not well chosen. I will change that but you shouldn't be that sensitive.

Americans have killed millions of people too. They did not need those words to do just that.

The Constitution was not about protecting minorities from the majority but about safeguarding money interests.

The rights of the minorities are not more protected than in a democracy with majority rule. Ask the Indians.

You at least can know now why the 99% are not in charge.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Thank you for the title concern


My opinion- "if OWS fails"
I've been there since 10/11 but my experience is MINE.
we will lose as long as we align with ourselves in stead of with what America wants.
The gun issue is NOT really in our "range". but do you remember the support we got from non-OWSers a year ago with our Occupy the Courts demonstrations?
We must grow by attracting average Americans. Imagine what would happen to OWS support if OWS had 100 big anti-gun demonstrations on 1/21?
We would be proving we are not on the fringe - "America we are you"
We have lost a lot of support because we wasted time on important - impossible - goals.
We have lost a lot of support because we rant and rave AGAINST without any real FOR goals.


my primary goal - as you said 99% in charge - and the only way to do that is voting.

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

I guess something more is needed. Referendums would be one thing. It is sad that the gun issue takes so much attention.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It's a republic. Period.

[-] 0 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

If you want to end corporate rule, and replace it by the rule of the people, then you should have to rewrite the Constitution.

In leftist circles in Europe it is sometimes said that the United States is not a country but a corporation because money interests dominate politics. In conservative circles in the United States some people assert that it all went wrong when the FED was introduced because banking interests gained control over the money supply from that time on. In reality this issue has a long history. The Founding Fathers of the United States that wrote the Constitution did not like democracy. They created a republic with safeguards against the rule of the people. According to William P. Meyers:

The causes of the American Revolution were many, but for the monied class there were three principal aims. They sought self-government: that is, they sought to rule the colonies themselves, to further their own interests. They sought to protect the institution of slavery, which had been endangered by Lord Mansfield's ruling against it in the Somerset case of 1772. And land speculators like George Washington sought to seize more Native American Indian land, which the British had outlawed.

But to win the American Revolution this predatory elite needed help. Their own rhetoric about freedom and equality led to widespread demands for the right to vote: universal suffrage. In other words, the people began demanding democracy. Even the slaves (white and black alike) demanded to be freed and allowed to vote.

After the British were defeated a centralised, national government was seen by George Washington and company not as a method of extending freedom and the right to vote, but as a way of keeping control in the hands of rich. They wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the US Constitution. Slavery was institutionalised. The Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly.

Money interests ruled the United States from the beginning. Even though the United States has become more democratic over time, the elite still determines who will be elected. Consequently a majority of people eligible to vote are so discouraged that they do not vote. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their interest groups. The organisation of the political system in the United States makes it easy for elite to control politics as there are only two political parties. It is difficult to start a new political party because there is no proportional representation. The founding fathers of the republic may have been afraid of political instability and mob rule. Former US President John Adams wrote in a letter to John Taylor:

I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Constitutionalists favour limited government as prescribed by the Constitution. Constitutionalists believe that a government should be small, not only in size but also in scope and in power. In their mind the rule of law should precede over the rule of the majority. As the laws are written by politicians and the campaigns of most politicians are funded by corporations, while the majority has no control over the process of law making, the outcome was never in much doubt: it is corporate rule and not limited government.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I said, it's a Republic not a democracy. Period.

I don't give two shits about the Constitutionalists.

You heard me.

Can't wait for the next round of emails filled with witty (?) banter.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1314) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

If the representatives are elected by the people (defined: democratically) then this is a democratic republic. If representatives to our government are appointed by a power other than the people, then this is not a democracy. It's a republic either way.

If the people are stupid and vote for the corporate sponsored representatives, then the democracy has been corrupted by stupidity and it doesn't matter what it's called. A fraud by any other name stinks all the same.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

For the Constitutionalists that spend a quantity of time pontificating on the original............it's a republic. Democracy was considered a great evil for the founders because it is a winner take all method and is considered tyranny of the majority.

Further, ALEC's call for rewriting a constitution and someone attempting to utilize the whole rewrite the constitution because of the number of people that were not represented is just insane.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1314) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

I don't care what anyone calls it. If we vote intelligently and demand honest elections, we the people can rule. Democracy means rule by the people. If morons insist on calling a representative government a non democratic republic whether or not the representatives are democratically elected, they're only fooling themselves. While we are not a democracy, it's because we've allowed the corporations to take us over mind and body. The constitution doesn't preclude democracy.

Yes, the founding fathers sold us out when they agreed there would be no reprisals against the Tory traitors who owned us then and whose [spiritual] heirs own us now. See: the Treaty of Paris in 1783. We'd started down hill before the constitution was written, even before the formal end of the revolution. Still, the constitution does not preclude freedom and democracy, if we're smart enough to demand them.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'The constitution doesn't preclude democracy' - the Constitution provides for a Representative Democracy. Not a Direct Democracy.

A referendum is a direct democracy measure. A referendum ballot is only allowed at the state/local on a limited basis and varies by state. It's not provided for at the federal level.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I do care. Because there are two very different meanings. For those specific ramifications look no further than California. Winner take all and usually by people that have no knowledge of what is at stake.

But yea. Not really.


Article 1: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Article 2: And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees of the equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River, thence straight to the head of Saint Mary's River; and thence down along the middle of Saint Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean; east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river Saint Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall, respectively, touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

Article 3: It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

Article 4: It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

Article 5: It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation. And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

Article 6: That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

Article 7: There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease. All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artilery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.

Article 8: The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

Article 9: In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

Article 10: The solemn ratifications of the present treaty expedited in good and due form shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in the space of six months or sooner, if possible, to be computed from the day of the signatures of the present treaty. In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.

Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.

D. HARTLEY (SEAL) JOHN ADAMS (SEAL) B. FRANKLIN (SEAL) JOHN JAY (SEAL)

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1314) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

"Article 6: That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued."

That's how the Tory traitors to the American Revolution, bankers, manufacturers, rentiers or whatever form of aristocratic tyrants, maintained their power. Such rule us yet today. The American Revolution fell short of achieving freedom from debt bondage for the American People. The opportunity to become one of the oppressors of humanity is not merely ironic. It's intolerable!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1314) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

The relevance of the Treaty is not it's present activity. It lies in the dead end course that was set.

It was like freeing the slaves but allowing the master to keep the plantation. Now he only has to support the lives of his workers during the busy season when he needs them. If they die, so what? There are thousands waiting in line to work for less sustainance than a slave.

To complete a revolution, the oppressive regime must be put out of business completely,

I know you have a good enough heart and mind to see this.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I do see it but it has nothing to do with this treaty and none of my seeing it has anything to do with rewriting or discarding the Constitution.

The treaty served it's purpose, although the land confiscation and persecutions of Tories continued, and it has no bearing currently.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1314) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Marx was apparently right about the self destruction of capitalism due to the concentration of wealth. His prediction has come true at least a hundred years before expected. We're still waiting on class consciousness. When it arrives, it'll be more easily seen what laid the groundwork for the demise of the aristocracy that rules us to this day.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The aristocracy predates Marxism and has been a bane to the existence of all other classes. Fight ALEC.

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1314) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Yep! Predates and preeedicts. ALEC will inspire awareness. Then we will win that fight.

[-] -1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

I guess this is the way you get 12K messages on this forum :).

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It drives me insane when I read history that has been conveniently watered down in an effort to push a point. I was done at "rewrite the constitution".

I acquired 12K posts simply because of the amount of time that I have been a member.

[-] -1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

You will have to put up with a two party system then.

If people do not take matters in their own hands then it will not get any better.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

No, the vast majority of your issues are at the state level. Yeah?

[-] 0 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

I do not live in the US so it isn't my problem anyway.

But I sniff a strong belief in the merits of the Constitution in the US while I do not see the same in other countries.

It looks like a kind of religion to me.

Rational debate about the issue seems impossible.

You wrote yourself: "It drives me insane when I read history that has been conveniently watered down in an effort to push a point. I was done at rewrite the constitution."

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Pfft........don't bs me. That was a very nice try though.

Your butchering history for your own agenda drives me insane.

The Constitution is a contract between the states. Deal.

[-] 0 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

Whatever. It can be rewritten and you can keep the good parts.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Wrong answer.

[-] 0 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

It needs a revolution but it can be done. It is just a piece of paper.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Grow up.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

The majority wins....OK. I guess that beats liquidating the dissenters or sending them to re-education