The Delphi Technique and #Occupy

[TerryBain]

That's pretty much the stance that Brandon Turbeville took in the Podcast. As a 21st century liberal, I don't think Keynes can cut it. I want to throw in this link on Economic Liberalism just to prove I can be open minded on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

[DrVolin]

...under the control of the elected legislature, rather than Wall Street,

Your plan sounds good. You're just missing one little, crucial step.

[TerryBain]

By the way, "Voodoo Economics" was a George Bush (King George the First) quote. "During the primaries, Bush had derided Reagan's hallmark pledge to cut taxes while hugely increasing the defense budget as 'voodoo economics.'" (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/essays/bush.html) Historian Caroll Quigley's “Money Power” (http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf) hates economic liberalism. It would mess up their Monopoly Capitalism. Congressional "Oversight" of the Fed (and that term applies on SO many levels) hasn't done much good, so far.

EDIT: But prosecutions under RICO, Fraud, etc. might be a step in the right direction. I think a third thing the Majority of Occupy Supporters supports is 3.)Accountability. There has been way more Jail time handed out to Occupy supporters, than to the Banksters that got us into this depression.

[JackRiddler]

...under the control of the elected legislature, rather than Wall Street,

Your plan sounds good. You're just missing one little, crucial step.

Money out of politics? Parliamentary system with proportional representation? Total revolution?

[JackRiddler]

I know exactly who first popularized the phrase "voodoo economics," and in that case, he was right.

[2012 Countdown]

I'd like to guess/add verifiable voting methods. Paper trails, etc., for us kooks who think elections are riggable , but money out or public funded elections are good to add too.

[TerryBain]

Good one, 2012.

OK Riddler, sorry. We have to agree to disagree on end the fed - lets table that, for now. That makes the vast majority of Occupy Supporters supporting 1) End the Wars 2.) Accountability. 3.) verifiable voting How's that for a start?

[DrVolin]

...under the control of the elected legislature, rather than Wall Street,

Your plan sounds good. You're just missing one little, crucial step.

Money out of politics? Parliamentary system with proportional representation? Total revolution?

An elected legislature not controlled by Wall Street

[TerryBain]

Excellent amendment Doc!

Back to you Rex - after reviewing the Podcast you observed

1)that there was little added that wasn't in Brandon's article. (I guess I didn't screw up the interview too much, then.)

2) Brandon asserts that the General Assembly process is itself a deliberate handicap that was put into place by "infiltrators." Essentially, he's saying that the originators of the #Occupy movement are enemy agents. @8:50 "It's not that the general assembly itself was corrupted. It's the the infiltrators came in and gave the Occupy movement the General Assembly itself, because the very act of consensus based decision making is...it bogs down the movement."

After you added the article from Mother Jones, you observed:
"Damn:
Mother Jones wrote:
Begonia adds: "The people are not here for the American economic crisis. They're here for the crisis of the world."
That's quite a reveal." I concur.

You asked, "If either of you believe that to be true, why are you involved?" I think I can safely say that both Brandon and I feel that supporting the occupy movement, while resisting being co-opted should not be mutually exclusive.

3) you stated that you "find it troubling that, given the long history of non-violent movement, protest sociology studies, activist training, alternative community, crowdsourcing and organizational design, the sole alternative this guy is able to come up with is...Robert's Rules of Order. This is definitely a case where I'm not going to regurgitate a bunch of links. This is a bizarre lack of simple research. Google is very easy to use and the internet is rather big."

Robert's Rules of Order is based on Thomas Jefferson's rules for Congress. I concur that there maybe something better - but, if you will notice, this Discussion has progressed, in the post above this, to being able to agree on three things nobody really is disagreeing with: A) End the Wars B.) Accountability. C.) verifiable voting

You will note, I trust, that when we ran into trouble with an issue, we tabled it (Robert's Rules). If a term was generally agreeable, but needed some change to keep us on track it was amended (We agreed to amend the term Delphi, and renamed it Wombat Technique). These are some examples of using common sense rules to find the consensus of what we are, basically, in agreement with. And if we were a GA, we could keep this process going to it's final conclusion - a Resolution.

4) You observed that Brandon "...recommend(s) bringing friends with you to influence and alter the course of General Assemblies. How does that make you any different from an infiltrator? Why are your goals and beliefs more valid than the person currently facilitating the meeting and the other people assembled there? Can you see why this kind of logic puzzles me?" My response is that mobilizing your voters is how representative democracy is supposed to work. (Assuming, as 2012 noted, that we agree that counting those votes is a good thing.)

5) You noted that Brandon mentions that the United Nations uses the General Assembly process, which is absurdly wrong. They have a body called the General Assembly. This is not the same thing. Again, Google vs. apophenia."

Dude, I can't even spell "apophenia," so I guess I will just concur so I don't come off looking any more ignorant than I already do.

6) Finally, you asked "What do you, Terry Bain, feel that the Occupy movement should be doing that it is not doing?" My answer, because I just naturally do things backwards was summed up first, but I would like to add this: If we can find a way to work together, reasonably, there is no reason, at all, to not be able to reach consensus.

I wanted help from RI on clarification of why we're not able to work together - I would like to think that our posts to this point illustrate that we can. Thanks ya'll.

[justdrew]

accountability is just a word. Who's ever going to say they're against that? You haven't even begun to sketch out what you mean by it. How exactly would such 'accountability' be implemented? Apparently, prosecutors do not feel evidence is sufficient to get convictions. Absent our legal process, what other avenue for accountability is there? If the customers of the rating agencies continue to pay those agencies for their opinions, I don't see what can be done about it. Perhaps setting up some competition for those private agencies would be helpful, but wouldn't any new rating agency tend to become as weaselly as the current ones in short order. Where would the staff come from who would be able to asses and access the info needed to make worthwhile assessments of investment opportunities?

[Marie Laveau]

I really appreciate both of you. When I think back on all the bullshit I used to believe, I'm inspired to re-evaluate all the probable bullshit I'm believing now.

^^^^^^
This. Absolutely this. I often, OFTEN don't believe my lying eyes.

[Twyla LaSarc]

John Brunner talks about Delphi pools (which people could bet on (an idea ol' whatshisname tried to make sorta real with his terrorism futures market (the TIA guy))) in Shockwave Rider

a book everyone should read.

I've read "To Stand on Zanzibar" and "The Sheep Look Up". I'd never heard of "Shockwave Rider", thanks!

[Bruce Dazzling]

IMO, the most important decision that needs to be made is whether or not OWS believes that it's possible to work for meaningful change within an existing system that has been specifically constructed with the goal of preventing meaningful change.

This may seem completely obvious, but I believe that it's the kind of obvious that often gets overlooked. It's the forest that can't be seen for the trees.

[Joe Hillshoist]

IMO, the most important decision that needs to be made is whether or not OWS believes that it's possible to work for meaningful change within an existing system that has been specifically constructed with the goal of preventing meaningful change.

That depends on how well constructed the system is and how imaginative sand determined the members of OWS in their attempts to find ways to create meaningful change doesn't it?

[Wombaticus Rex]

IMO, the most important decision that needs to be made is whether or not OWS believes that it's possible to work for meaningful change within an existing system that has been specifically constructed with the goal of preventing meaningful change.

This may seem completely obvious, but I believe that it's the kind of obvious that often gets overlooked. It's the forest that can't be seen for the trees.

Absolutely.

This has been a central and constantly recurring issue in the #Occupy cells I've seen, both in the GA context and informally. I also suspect that the lack of a clear platform and "demands" is a calculated bid to side-step this extremely divisive question. Yet this question is the core of any subsequent action.