Talk:Liberty Square Blueprint - Revision history

imported>Big V: Oops, I added the Comments section to the Discussion page. I will move it to the Main page.

2011-11-02T17:54:15Z

Oops, I added the Comments section to the Discussion page. I will move it to the Main page.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:54, 2 November 2011
Line 32:		Line 32:

	[[User:Forezt\|forest]] 11:24, 30 October 2011 (CDT)		[[User:Forezt\|forest]] 11:24, 30 October 2011 (CDT)

	~~== Comments ==~~
	Hi. This is Big V speaking. I just want to comment that it might really help to get input from the general public on the various OWS proposals. I am talking about people who are not able to attend actual meetings. For instance, many of us don't live in a place where meetings occur. Also, if a person lives in a small town, then they have to worry about getting "found out" by a person who might fire them or evict them. It's weird because the OWS is more accepted than not, but some people are irrationally opposed to it. I will be more than happy to vote online for various OWS ideas, and here is my first promotion:

	I like the idea of a Constitutional amendment that would put a cap on campaign contributions from individuals, and prohibit contributions from anyone who is not a US citizen and a real-live individual. I think $100 sounds good, indexed to inflation.

	I saw a draft of an amendment like that floating around, and I signed the petition to get it considered. The draft I saw was right on target because it specifically said that money is not speech and that corporations are not people. You would think that our Supreme Court would be intelligent enough to figure that out on their own, but I guess not.

	If we could prohibit very large campaign contributions, then we could truly reduce the influence of one person to one vote, which would make this country much closer to an equal-opportunity place. Also, by saying that money is not speech, but speech is still free, then we get rid of the problem where wealthy people have a lot more freedom than everyone else.

imported>Big V: Added comments section with first main idea.

2011-11-02T17:50:37Z

Added comments section with first main idea.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 2 November 2011
Line 32:		Line 32:

	[[User:Forezt\|forest]] 11:24, 30 October 2011 (CDT)		[[User:Forezt\|forest]] 11:24, 30 October 2011 (CDT)

			== Comments ==
			Hi. This is Big V speaking. I just want to comment that it might really help to get input from the general public on the various OWS proposals. I am talking about people who are not able to attend actual meetings. For instance, many of us don't live in a place where meetings occur. Also, if a person lives in a small town, then they have to worry about getting "found out" by a person who might fire them or evict them. It's weird because the OWS is more accepted than not, but some people are irrationally opposed to it. I will be more than happy to vote online for various OWS ideas, and here is my first promotion:

			I like the idea of a Constitutional amendment that would put a cap on campaign contributions from individuals, and prohibit contributions from anyone who is not a US citizen and a real-live individual. I think $100 sounds good, indexed to inflation.

			I saw a draft of an amendment like that floating around, and I signed the petition to get it considered. The draft I saw was right on target because it specifically said that money is not speech and that corporations are not people. You would think that our Supreme Court would be intelligent enough to figure that out on their own, but I guess not.

			If we could prohibit very large campaign contributions, then we could truly reduce the influence of one person to one vote, which would make this country much closer to an equal-opportunity place. Also, by saying that money is not speech, but speech is still free, then we get rid of the problem where wealthy people have a lot more freedom than everyone else.

imported>Forezt at 16:24, 30 October 2011

2011-10-30T16:24:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 30 October 2011
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Jim		Jim

			==Re:Shadow govt==

			"Shadow government" is good in the way it implies that our government is actually just a diffuse projection emanating from the bright, bright lights of corporate capitalism. I just think that it could be more specific spelling this out. At the same time, I think we stand to gain from keeping metaphors succinct and unambiguous. "Shadow government" might be reaching a little too high.

			I also wanted to point out that occupy boston is working on a road map of their own:

			[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Road_Map]

			Some people in the talk page were asking question about consistency with the language of OWS. I think this just highlights how we should be presenting this blueprint in some form sooner than later.

			As Goethe's motto goes, "ohne Rast aber ohne Hast"

			Without rest but without haste.

			Will be contributing my edits to both of these soon. Back in New York next week. Do we have a regular meeting time? Ted, any word from the GA?

			[[User:Forezt\|forest]] 11:24, 30 October 2011 (CDT)

imported>Dichotomous: Blue print edits and shadow government

2011-10-23T03:20:45Z

Blue print edits and shadow government

New page

Friends,

I have just finished a minor edit of the blueprint. I thought the site tracks the changes, but if not the only change I made beyond spelling corrections was the line:

Our goals are aimed at dissolving the effective "shadow government" created by the corporations and banks, that literally surrounds Liberty Plaza and is destroying the American dream, and our planet Earth.

I know the term "shadow government" is controversial and there are some who favor its removal. I strongly advise we put this to the GA. I also think a question about the belief in the concept and the appropriateness of the term should be included in the survey I am planning.

In the limited and flawed survey I already did 88% of the respondents said one of their goals in being at OWS was to decrease the infulence of money on the US political system. I think we may find that with creative wording we may find that the shadow government idea resonates with many.

If OWS is America's Arab spring, the shadow government is the target.

The corporate media has been clamoring for our goals. Think about how unhappy they will be if we force them to start talk seriously about the idea of a shadow government.

Jim