BTW, I've known David since 1999 - we met in an on-line forum - and he's written these commentaries since 1996. He also hosts a radio program - also called BRUTALLY HONEST - at 7 pm ET/4 pm PT Saturdays on the Internet radio station ShockNet Radio.
And thanks for the reply and posting Nerd! =)
This is interesting... of course I think both Nazis and Communists have something(s) right, and something(s) wrong - although in general Communism is more sane. I also have a strong aversion to the use of force and I don't view war as a good thing... another reason I'm more inclined to support Communism.
Ultimately direct digital democracy is 'where it's at,' ideology be damned.
Oh great, just what we need, Nazis! Hey Sassan, don't lump us in with those crazies either!
Direct digital democracy is a very interesting idea, one I've been thinking about for some time now (though I'd never heard anyone else mention it before now). Perhaps, one day, but that is a day a long way off.
This is a start... what is needed to create a direct online democracy by issue is out there, wiki's, social networking, encryption... the materials are all there, all that is needed is to bring them together in a coherent and transparent institutional form.
Search on Wikipedia and you will find several websites devoted to online direct democracy - sites that originated out of the open source and free software movement.
Hell, even Greece's left opposition has a direct democracy party allied side by side with communists, and syndicalists. This is the future, open legislation- where anybody has virtually the same powers as a MP in parliament, ideally a true meritocracy, if you have some 'faith' in humanity... Faith obviously isn't the right world, but I'll give humanity the benefit of the doubt. Will you?
Now if only I was smarter and didn't have CFS and the bloody brain fog... and I could program, I would develop the future society platform I have in mind by myself. Dammit anyone know any good nootropics available? I want to advance civilization but I can't do it with all the fracking problems, not to mention emotional damage, I have.
I think I'll stop following this now.
It would be nice to see a more objective discussion of the topic, especially a more objective criticism of the movement, but the appeals to emotion are a form of fallacy, and the ad hominems on both sides do not provide reasoned discourse. I get the support for the movement - the economic inequity seems strongly supported, the spectre of joblessness is everywhere, and the losses of economic security are everywhere. What I don't see is, other than "occupy protesters are jerks", is fact-based or statistic-based argument against the movement. I don't have a dog in this fight (my dogs are lovers, not fighters), but in this debate the Pro-occupy side is clearly in the winners circle. I don't believe most arguments are that one sided, so it's disappointing that there wasn't more logical support on the "anti-occupy" side.
I'm like you, Biped. IE not much invested in the argument. My anti argument is I am not sure how effective this type of protest actually is. However, I can think of instances where this type of protest was very effective (ie the veterans protests after WWI which eventually led to the establishment of the VA medical system ). I think a lot of these weekday protesters (at least where I live) are college students.