It's Time to Reboot America - Government in the Internet Age
NOTE: I want to make clear that in posting this article I'm in no way supporting whatever viewpoint the author may hold, which some have pointed out may be a Liberal Democratic stance! What I AM attempting to present by posting this article is a METHODOLOGY that is touched upon here that I think is more than beneficial to our country, and that I think this movement should be spearheading.
The only term I've found for this material is Social Process Activism, which goes beyond the Adversarial Activism that we are currently engaged in. Instead of simply just "fighting the man" and taking the power back from him, this material cuts right to how people can make decisions together, that benefit all, and not only that, but how groups of individuals can make decisions more effectively in the face of any issue! The power in this is that when applied, the citizenry becomes more involved and engaged in the process, and also more empowered, which is the biggest weapon used against us: our Apathy and Dis-Empowerment!
So please, I ask that if you read this, hold your nose through anything that might set off your alarms and try to see the power inherent in the methods spoken of, and know that they are only the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of techniques designed to empower and activate the citizenry.
It's Time to Reboot America.
Edited by Allison Fine, Micah L. Sifry, Andrew Rasiej and Josh Levy
The Personal Democracy Forum presents an anthology of forty-four essays brimming with the hopes of reenergizing, reorganizing, and reorienting our government for the Internet Age. How would completely reorganizing our system of representation work? Is it possible to redesign our government with open doors and see-through walls? How can we leverage the exponential power of many-to-many deliberation for the common good?
Click on an individual author's essay, download the entire anthology, or buy the book. However you dive in, join our conversation about these ideas here and at www.personaldemocracy.com!
-----------
http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/71
Deliberative Democracy in Theory and Practice
by Kaliya Hamlin
"At the heart of America’s liberal democracy are
competitive elections, but this design choice does
not enhance collective intelligence and wisdom.”
John Ralston Saul, in “The Unconscious Civilization,” wrote “The most powerful force possessed by the individual citizen is her own government. ... Government is the only organized mechanism that makes possible that level of shared disinterest known as the public good.”
During the winter of 1997, fifteen Boston citizens—from a homeless shelter resident to a high-tech business manager, from a retired farmer to a recent inner-city high school graduate—undertook an intensive study of telecommunications issues. Over two weekends in February and March, they discussed background readings and got introductory briefings. Then, on April 2nd and 3rd, they heard ten hours of testimony from experts, computer specialists, government officials, business executives, educators, and interest-group representatives. After interrogating the experts and deliberating late into the night (with excellent facilitation), they came up with a consensus statement recommending judicious but far-reaching policy changes which they presented at a press conference at Tufts University, covered by WCVB-TV/CNN and the Boston Globe, among other news organizations. U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey, ranking Democrat (and former Chair) of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, said, “This is a process that I hope will be repeated in other parts of the country and on other issues.”
These ordinary citizens ended up knowing more about telecommunications than the average congressperson who votes on the issue. Dick Sclove, a lead organizer of the event, says that their behavior contradicted the assertion that government and business officials are the only ones competent and caring enough to be involved in technological decision-making. This lay panel assimilated a broad array of testimony, which they integrated with their own very diverse life experiences to reach a well-reasoned collective judgment grounded in the real needs of everyday people. This proves that democratizing U.S. science and technology decision-making is not only advisable, but also possible and practical.21
When the Framers of our Constitution met in Philadelphia in 1787, digital media, modern psychology, social psychology, and ecological and systems science did not exist. The deliberative democracy approach outlined above and expanded upon in this essay integrates the best of face-to-face social collaboration technologies with information and communication technologies for wise governance decisions. Using these kinds of processes and technologies we can actually hear what my collaborator and network colleague Tom Atlee calls the Voice of “We the People” expressing the public good.22
At the heart of America’s liberal democracy are competitive elections, but this design choice does not enhance collective intelligence and wisdom. It fragments communities and societies into reductionist, adversarial “sides” and reduces complex spectra of possibilities to oversimplified “positions” that preclude creative alternatives. The norm is that citizens abdicate decision-making to elected officials, who are in turn heavily influenced by the special interests they must serve to raise money to be re-elected. With few exceptions, existing processes of democracy
# Do not provide much effective power to ordinary citizens
# Promote at least as much ignorance and distraction as
informed public dialogue
# Serve special interests better than the general welfare
# Impede breakthroughs that could creatively resolve
problems and conflicts, and
# Undermine the emergence of inclusive community wisdom
Voting developed as a process to support self-governance in American history, and at its inception in the 18th century it was new and innovative. In the town halls of New England, citizens gathered together, debated, and decided among themselves those who would hold leadership positions in the community. The method has not scaled to address the "wicked problems" we as a country and world face. Wicked problems are incomplete, contradictory and have changing requirements; and solutions to them are often difficult to recognize because of their complex interdependencies—solutions may reveal or create more wicked problems.23 Economic, environmental, social, and political issues are wicked problems.
In Tom Atlee’s book, The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World that Works for All,24 he highlights several working examples of Citizen Deliberative Councils, including Citizen Jury, Consensus Conference, and Wisdom Council.25
These efforts have common characteristics that can be replicated in other communities. They are, to some extent, official, with an explicit mandate from government agencies to address public issues or the general concerns of the community. They generate a specific product—such as findings or recommendations—to the larger community and elected officials. They are real councils, meaning that they are in-person, face-to-face assemblies. Council members are from a fair cross-section of society, often randomly selected peer citizens. These bodies are temporary, not meeting for more than a few weeks. Their efforts are deliberative and balanced, and often facilitated to help participants to understand diverse points of view.
These processes were created before the Web existed, and as such were labor intensive, expensive and difficult to scale.26 But now we have an emerging suite of online tools that can augment these processes and reduce their costs. The right combination of face-to-face deliberation with online tools can be as revolutionary as the self-governance process developed by the Framers in 1787.
Any neighborhood council, city council, region, state or even national lawmakers can use these processes to tap the wisdom and decision-making potential of the people. Here’s how it could work:
* Pick an Issue. Choose the topic from all the possible problems that could be tackled. Issues can be surfaced online using popular participation websites such as Digg that allow users to rank issues or polling via a network like Twitter.
* Frame the Issue. Framing an issue for deliberation means describing the range of approaches to an issue and the arguments and evidence for and against each approach. A wiki is the kind of tool that will allow large groups of people (think Wikipedia) to work on understanding and elucidating an issue together.
* Select Deliberators. This step is key to the legitimacy of citizen councils. The selection of deliberators must represent the diversity of the community and be resistant to outside pressures. This gives them a legitimacy that is similar to, but more refined than, the selection of juries, which also seeks to convene a cross-section of the community. Database tools can be used to create unbiased and inclusive selections of deliberators. These same kinds of tools can also be used to pool citizens willing to participate in deliberative councils.
* Collect Information and Expertise. Gathering information from a range of experts and stakeholders about the pros and cons of different approaches is the next step. This is an important factor in both collective intelligence (which learns from and integrates diverse views) and legitimacy (the willingness of ordinary citizens and officials to respect the outcomes of the process). We can find experts via the Web, draw in their expert testimony via web video conferencing, and perhaps have online forums where their knowledge is aggregated. Massive datasets of expert information are now free and available about critical issues, such as environmental toxins and the relationship between lobbying funds and legislation in Congress. These can be compiled, presented and widely shared with visualization tools, using methods beyond prose or PowerPoint to present critical information and tell relevant stories.
* Deliberation. Most citizen deliberative councils involve 12-24 deliberators meeting in concentrated dialogue over four to eight days (distributed over one to ten weeks, depending on the method), led by professional facilitators. Since this may not be feasible in all circumstances, we can use the distributed intelligence of the Web to augment the in-person deliberations. Deliberations can happen both online and face-to-face over time, thus reducing the time and cost. Different algorithmic and semantic tools can be used to help deliberators see patterns of agreement and understanding.
* Decision-Making. It is important to find processes that produce a deliberative Voice of “We the People” that the vast majority of the population will recognize as legitimate. Online tools like Synanim.com build consensus and shared statements using a multi-step online process. Iteration can also happen using methods like Digg or Slash-dot-style voting and community commentary.
* Dissemination and Impact. It is critically important to the ultimate success of citizen deliberative councils that their impact on public awareness, public policy, and public programs be discussed and understood. Online tools are critical to these assessments in a variety of ways. Politicians and other officials should also sign pledges in support of these efforts (this can be a campaign issue) that can be shared online. [For example, see http://www.co-intelligence.org/PoliticiansPledgeCampaign.html ] Ongoing feedback can be integrated and continually shared with the public using online phenomena like Facebook and organized networks like MoveOn.org to share results and empower “We the People” to ensure its Voice is heard.
The approaches and processes discussed in this essay are not an answer to our democratic woes and difficulties. The tools and advantages of the Internet alone aren’t enough to augment existing democratic processes and strengthen our country. This essay is intended as a call to action and research to learn how best to scale new methods of citizen consultation, leadership, and wisdom together with online tools. I invite a more thorough exploration of how these steps can create a deep well of ongoing, meaningful citizen participation in the critical decisions of our government at all levels.
About the Author
Kaliya Young Hamlin designs and facilitates gatherings of professional technical communities addressing large challenges. She is an expert in the field of user-centric digital identity, blogging at unconference.net and identitywoman.net. Born and raised in Vancouver, Canada she has lived her whole adult life in the United States and recently applied for citizenship.
21 “Ordinary Folks Make Good Policy,” Co-Intelligencer website, http://www.co-intelligence.org/S-ordinaryfolksLOKA.html, downloaded April 18, 2008.
22 How Can We Create an Authentic, Inclusive Voice of We the People from the Grassroots Up? http://thataway.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=477 Initiated by Tom Atlee Modified by/commented on by Kaliya Hamlin
23 Wicked problems are defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
24 Atlee, Tom, The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World that Works for All, available here: http://www.collectivewisdominitiative.org/files_people/Atlee...
25 The reader can learn more about these efforts at the following websites:
,,
,
,
26 Scaling in the computing, network sense is the ability to to either handle growing amounts of work in a graceful manner, or to be readily enlarged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability In practical terms a website that can handle 2000 visitors a day may not work with 10,000 or 100,000 or a million visitors day. The democratic voting process that worked well in a New England town of 1,000 people or a state of 10,000 citizens is not scaling well to a nation of three hundred million.
________________________________
Tom Atlee • The Co-Intelligence Institute • PO Box 493 • Eugene, OR 97440
http://www.co-intelligence.org • http://www.democracyinnovations.org
Read THE TAO OF DEMOCRACY • http://www.taoofdemocracy.com
Tom Atlee's blog http://www.evolvingcollectiveintelligence.org
Please support our work. • Your donations are fully tax-deductible.
Hmmm. . .
Hmmm. . .
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
the basic idea
Fortune Favors the Bold
where citizens councils present specific recommendations to elected officials, is not a terrible one, but I can see some flaws to this approach.
The first thing that jumped at me was the "facilitators." Recall G. Edward Griffin's essays about how facilitators often lead groups to pre-appointed conclusions by using specific psychological tactics. This could me a way to legitamize unpopular decisions, by enforcing the notion that everyone agrees with them, or that they were in response to popular demand. The other problem is that most groups would tend to approach "issues" from a pro-active framework, in other words, assuming they can come up with a government orchestrated solution to any problem. The idea of doing nothing probably wouldn't occur to them; it would be assumed that they were there to devise a plan.
Fortune Favors the Bold
Yeah citizens councils are
Yeah citizens councils are only a first step, although a big one. There's more to it than just the council itself, as it then also requires an immense amount of DIALOGUE amongst the population(whether it be a local, state, or national council) and there is where the real magic happens. It gives all involved a basis for communication and idea sharing. Heck, it could even happen that say a particular town doesn't agree with what the national council came up with, and so they drop the suggestions altogether, but they then would use a similar process to come up with their own ways, and the whole council dialogue would be the foundational situation that led to their breakthroughs!
This idea is applicable in many ways and requires a lot of effort, but it's there to use. . .
As to the Facilitators question, yes there is always a concern for manipulation, but that is nothing new. The more people are educated about these things, the less likely the chance and opportunity for the people to be swindled! It's like an old Sufi saying that goes something like, "If you can be fooled, you will be fooled." So, take that as you will.
I like Griffin, although no one has all of the pieces to this puzzle and the one thing that always struck me as somehow off with him is his reticence that what we're fighting is Collectivism vs. Individualism which I always intuited as wrong but didn't know why. You see, he doesn't differentiate between a collective of people that is self-governing, self regulated, as opposed to a collective of people that are regulated from some higher authority! There lies an immense world of difference, and what is talked about in this article is the collectivity that is self-governing, which is EXACTLY what America is supposed to be all about! People hear any form of the word Collective and they cringe, but they don't realize that the entire flow of history is enacted collectively, by individuals, so there really is no logic in the Collectivity vs. Individuality argument, because our lives contain both and all.
Also, these councils aren't designed to come up with government orchestrated solutions exactly. They are meant to engage the voice of the people by picking randoms among various demographics, classes, experiences, etc and that group is in turn meant to inform the government, and the people, about what these various representative groups would most likely come to terms on if they were to be able to talk all at once. Then, it's like a trickle down, and up, effect as these ideas are discussed at all levels of society and constant feedback is being transmitted amongst the population at light speeds, which fosters the evolution of these ideas into even more viable solutions that don't work for only interest groups and lobby gangs, but for everyone! That is the key to this whole thing, it's gotta work for everyone, not just Us or Them, but ALL.
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
Nothing but a pipe dream
You've obviously never lived in a neighborhood that's had a homeowners association.
You can't even get "immense amount of DIALOGUE" for people to agree to rules and covenances. Let alone on how to run a city, a county, a state, or a federal government.
Face it, people are not robots, we aren't machines, we all have different wants, different needs, and different points of view.
This is complete nonsense and not sure why some here at the daily paul are even entertaining this idea. It's complete garbage.
What you fail to see is that
What you fail to see is that this is just a beginning, a direction that if taken will change the way our culture interacts, and will further the enlightenment of our social discourse!
You can't get much dialogue going these days for many reasons among which are there are no well known ways and methods for people from vary opposing walks of life to be able to come to some kind of consensus about anything, let alone big decisions.
But here's the thing, if we start using, adapting and enhancing these techniques(and this article mentions only a small few, there are more, many more) then we will be starting this off on a local level, and as time goes on and these methods are experienced by more and more people, they will attract more attention. . .The government will know the people are beginning to mobilize effectively, without the need for leaders at the top or anything like that, which is what the CFL is all about, right?
Dude, I know you can't see past your ideology, and maybe this article isn't for everyone, but check out the book the Tao of Democracy by Tom Atlee, that will start to show you this bigger(as yet unmanifested) picture that is talked about here. It's not any Liberal message I'm trying to get across here, it's a methodology, a new thing that not many of us know about and since I've encountered it and see the potential in it, I want to share it with others here.
I'm a coordinator with the Restore the Republic group, so for me to be posting this on here isn't garbage, maybe I'm just on to something here. . .
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
what a load of garbage
Why is it these so called "educated" individuals keep calling our system of government a "democracy"?
I stopped reading after this line of atrocious stupidity: "At the heart of America’s liberal democracy"
We are NEITHER, and I've had it with this blantant form of lieing to the public. Just about every school child has said the "Pledge of Allegiance" yet no one can remember this little line: ",and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands"
Gee what a concept a Republic, why didn't the founding fathers think of that?
I'm done even entertaining the reading of these morons who do not know the difference with the system of government we have.
I stopped reading
at the same point for the same reason.
We don't really have a republic anymore...if we ever did
Ron Paul is the great uniter, the income tax fighter...the military-supported, defender of the border...the political apathy solution and the champion of the Constitution! Doctor Paul is on-call!
Yes, cheers to that! And
Yes, cheers to that! And the one thing that I agree with the good Doctor on is to work within the system, which is not antithetical to this material.
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
Actually, this methodology
Actually, this methodology would work best in the individualist society espoused by the CFL!!!
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
I think it's fair for us to
I think it's fair for us to admit that we still are a small minority in America and most of the world calls it a democracy. . .We know we have a Republic, but that is not the point of the article, which is to introduce new PROCESSES that can be used to create a more aware, active citizenry which is exactly what we need!!!
Why do so many get caught up in fits over this term? Okay, it's a Republic, but does that acknowledgment help us to get anything done!?!?
No, it doesn't, correct point as it may be. . .
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
Validity
You can think it fair all you want that we are a small minority. I wholeheartedly agree that we are. But the author loses validity if he doesn't even know the correct system of government that we have.
You can't introduce "new processes" with a form of goverment the author thinks we have. Democracy is nothing like a Republic. They work VERY differently. You can't put regular gasoline in a Ferrari and expect 200MPH performance, just as you can't introduce "new processes" if you don't know the correct system of government.
That's my point, and authors, educators, and lieing politicians should be reminded of the fact that we are not a democracy.
You're failing to see the
You're failing to see the big picture here, it is not THEM who need to be spearheading these newer processes, it us US which should be at the forefront!
So what if the author is a constitutionally uneducated Liberal Democrat? That doesn't detract from the power inherent in the methodology of co-intelligence and citizen activism that are presented!!! THATS the point!!!
It's very easy for people in this movement to be wary of and lash out at anything that still carries with it the stink of "normal politics", such as being a Democrat or believing we're a Democracy. . .Again with that point, about 95% of the world public accept that we are a democracy only because it's been shoved down our throat. . .But what we're really all talking about is a Republic so let's get over being a stickler on this point, please, it's nit-picky and effect-less for our purposes. Perhaps out on the street its beneficial to point out this difference to people, and even to authors and such(perhaps email this woman. . .) but among us, when talking about how to most effectively influence the course of this country, my bet is on powerful methods that enhance our collective intelligence and personal power as opposed to the collective power held by persons at higher ends of the economic foodchain. . .
Collectivity is the way of the future, and if you look around you'll see that(Internet is perfect example of future potentials) but the question is not will we be more collective as a species but, who will control the collective? A small cadre of elites and pencil pushers with automatic weapons? Or EVERY single citizen working in concert with all other citizens, deciding for themselves what is best for all, as ALL will have a say!!!
Think about it before engaging in your hard-wired political programming, this stuff is potent!!!
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
collectivity the way of the future?
Give me a break, I will live out in no mans land away from everyone if I EVER am considered part of some collectivist garbage.
We are a COLLECTIVE now, and notice how it is failing? How our leaders don't listen? How our money is robbed at gun point from those "entrusted" to be in power? It fails for the simple reason of HUMAN GREED and CORRUPTION. It will NEVER work, and our REPUBLIC set upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is the way it should be. No one making laws for a few to over ride the rights of everyone.
This author is clueless, and this collectivist communist garbage is complete filth.
Collectivism is a complete and utter failure, I encourage you to experiance individualism, and personal freedom. Stay away from this collectivist bullshit.
And for the record I am not "failing to see the picture" at all here. The worthless dirt stupid knuckle dragging mouth breathing pot smoking dipshit hippies of the 60's tried this collectivist crap in communes, notice how there aren't any anymore. Gee wonder why?
Dude, you're just spewing
Dude, you're just spewing anger and ignorance so why even bother responding? But I will. What I mean about collectivism being the way of the future, I mean that it is really how it's always been. Small nomadic tribes were nothing but small collectives that required the skills and handiwork of everyone to survive. Cut to modern day and you have us being manipulated by elite power systems into a collective that is basically slavery, but it doesn't have to be that way!
You talk about living individualism, and that is exactly what I do, that is why I'm not afraid to entertain certain lines of thought that normally people in this movement avoid because of overused terms like "collectivism" and all that. The words are not what's important, it's the meaning behind them. Again, this method for social interaction is just one of many, but it is better than ANYTHING else we have going on today, and I don't see anyone talking about anything anywhere near this stuff in terms of it's effectiveness.
Look up wisdom councils, world cafe, co-intelligence, etc. There are a lot of people working on stuff that will blow you away, if you don't get caught in your same old ideology that is like any other ideology: A blinder.
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
spewing?
It's not anger and ignorance to understand what this author and the person that posted it is proposing.
You fail to take into account human nature, which is why that "new process" will not work. The system will only work when all it's parts have the same goal. People are unpredictable and as I'm sure you know all have different goals. It's foolish to think that some people want to be free and live individual lives. As we've seen most are happy being slaves to a system as long as they are fed. Making decisions and taking part in a political process is hard work. And notice the sheer number of people who do not take part because of it. We call it apathy. I call it willful stupidity.
This system would not work on a national scale plain and simple. It's not my fault you can't see that. The collectives you suggested I have looked up and looked into, so no contrary to your belief I am not ignorant. BUT Those systems all have an enormous flaw. The people working in them WANT to be working in them. Get someone who doesn't and it fails.
Well you see that is where
Well you see that is where you're wrong actually, because these methods are not reliant upon all parts of the system having the same goal which, is wholly unrealistic! These are designed with opposing goals and viewpoints as the bread and butter, and from that to work towards finding common grounds and reasonable proposals. These methods spoken of are a tool, plain and simple, they are not a way for everyone and I consider them only as first steps towards greater community among our populations which is something that isn't being fostered by any political party, movement, etc. Not even us, we don't even have any program or method to get our community closer together. I think that is one thing those dirty, open mouthed, pot smoking hippies had on us, they atleast had community wherever they went! Oh, and, the Farm is still operational by the way. . .
But really, if you look into this, you won't find some bullshit pipedream system, you'll find a tool that is more powerful than many of the things out there! With the rise of constitutional awareness, along with personal liberty issues, that this movement is working to raise, it is only reasonable that we encourage ways of getting our communities to engage with each other on a more open basis because otherwise we look like isolationists, Libertarian wackos, and all of the other hateful tags the media may have thrown at us! These methods I speak of would work BEST in a culture that respects the Individual absolutely!
Also, I'm interested to know which "collectives I suggested" you actually "looked up and in to" because I don't see any rebuttal of the information, just "oh it's "no they won't work!"
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
If you take the methodological approach
in and of itself, out of context of this article's fabric, it can be a workable approach for the most part, if directed at the goals of freedom.
But the idealogical issues and goals presented in this article are utter drivel, and made me sick to read them.
It makes me really ponder whether to even consider the methodological ideas written here, when the context is so disgusting.
??? I'm sorry, I'm not
???
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you mean. . .
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
It reeks
of leftist collectivism, with a little lip service to populism to take the edge off.
These efforts have common
These efforts have common characteristics that can be replicated in other communities. They are, to some extent, official, with an explicit mandate from government agencies to address public issues or the general concerns of the community. They generate a specific product—such as findings or recommendations—to the larger community and elected officials. They are real councils, meaning that they are in-person, face-to-face assemblies. Council members are from a fair cross-section of society, often randomly selected peer citizens. These bodies are temporary, not meeting for more than a few weeks. Their efforts are deliberative and balanced, and often facilitated to help participants to understand diverse points of view.
If this is Leftist Collectivism and Populism, then perhaps our terms are meaningless because what is wrong with that above?
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
I just haven't seen anything
I just haven't seen anything so potent in this movement that can include everyone, not just US, you know? Instead of engaging in the old Adversarial Activism, we're going beyond it into the actual Social Processes that are required to create change. . .because even working to get a few good politicians in office doesn't do half of what we need, which is citizen empowerment and activism!!!
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
As I said,
the mechanics of the process can be used for good purposes.
Just leave the leftist dogma out of it, and replace it with freedom information.
If you can't wade through
If you can't wade through shit, then stay out of the jungle.
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
.
.
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
Wow, I'm surprised no one
Wow, I'm surprised no one has commented on this! Although, I suppose with the RFTR going on today that is what's on everbody's mind!!!
Anyway, this is the kind of stuff that I think would be extremely beneficial to our efforts if it was uptaken by this movement. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that this is the sort of direction many of us should go(while still firmly embracing the values we already uphold!), and would be a real trendsetter for the rest of the nation. . .Someone, some movement, is going to catch on to this stuff in a real big way and then it will be their ideals that get a little bit more sunshine because they'll be leaders in the new political empowerment movements that will spread through the country before the North American Union garbage becomes unavoidable, so why not it be THIS movement that leads the way!?!?!?
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
shameless bump?
shameless bump?
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
You might gain more readers if you
posted more succinctly. There may be good examples of the processes you advocate right before us. This Daily Paul forum is a clear example of the efficiency of individuals joining together and working through ideas on a daily basis. We all together make up a kind of liberty think tank, sharing ideas, experiences, hopes, strategies. And the whole internet with its many facets such as Wikipedia etc. show the same phenomenon.
You are suggesting one type of strategy which may be very effective. All around us there are many effective strategies already up and running.
Yeah, when I have time I'm
Yeah, when I have time I'm actually going to write up something outlining these strategies in the syntax of the freedom movement, but until then. . .
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com