In Favor of All US Residents Organizing Politically
-
I judge that the people who live in what is called the US have sufficient grounds to organize among themselves independently of the State governments and of the US so as to make collective decisions to try to mitigate suffering in the coming ecological, economic, and social collapses, and to end US imperialism and US torture.
A right for the people to change their government is not a new idea. It is cited in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-
@jack-waugh certainly I agree with this. I think the matter is that the powers given to our government officials no longer constitute an investment, but rather have devolve into a parasitic scam, since the people do not receive satisfactory dividends or returns of those powers, and yet have no means within the scope of current legislation to revoke or reconfigure their funds into a worthier political market.
I have the maxim in mind that powers willingly delegated by the people in the present must be inextricable from proportionate powers returned to the people in the future. Voting is supposed to be the nonviolent means by which the people can take back the powers they have given out, and if that means fails, then the alternative is almost sure to be violence. Our means of nonviolent revocation of powers are broken, and fixing them is in my view the only viable way to avoid future violence. Whether you agree or disagree with the perpetrators, the march on Washington was a demonstration of this. I don’t see that event as solely a reflection on the individual perpetrators. In fact, on a sociological scale, such attribution is a distraction, since events like it, whether from the left, right, center or elsewhere, are almost sure to follow naturally from the brokenness of our voting system.
Barring the obvious aspects of violence that are unpleasant to say the least, my opinion as regards liberty is also that violence as a means of revocation of power is too unstable to risk. The probability of a successful revocation of powers is overshadowed by the likelihood of the institution of a totalitarian regime, whether by the government in response to a failed revolution, or by the successful revolutionaries themselves.
-
@cfrank, I agree with your assessment about the parasitism. Where you write "scam", I first misread it as "scum", and I agree with either reading.
In regard to nonviolent regime change, recall that after the 1787 rewrite of the US Constitution, and after, I guess, many States had ratified the new version, and after Congress as specified in the new constitution had met, the old congress under the Articles of Confederation dissolved itself, based on the observation that a new government, having some grounds of legitimacy, was in operation. There was no violence around that change. Moreover, that change did not obey an amendment formula from the Articles; it was a true revolution. By analogy, a revolution could be carried out in modern times, if enough proportion of the people can be recruited to participate or at least endorse.
-
@cfrank Further regarding violence, heinous violence is already routine with the current officials. Much of it is directed outside the borders. Some is directed at poor people inside the borders. A purpose I think the new organization should take on is a reduction in violence.
-
@jack-waugh you’re completely right. I suppose what I’m calling “violence” is only violence with the potential to destabilize the status quo. In many respects that kind of violence is warranted, but I hope there are ways to stably conduct much needed changes in the status quo without violence.