'Sometimes tea parties have unintended consequences.' Weekend Watching - Juan Enriquez: The Untied States of America

The US is one of the most homogeneous and at the same time insular cultures in the world. We eat the same food, listen to the same music, and we watch the same tv and movies. We may have different physical characteristics and ancestry but we learn the same things at school, wear the same uniforms, and for the most part speak the same language.
Regardless of whether it is reflected by more or less lines drawn on a map, the world’s borders are disappearing faster than we realize. This cultural homogenization continues to spread at a faster and faster rate. Be it globalization, corporatism, or the internet, America has been broadcast and exported around the globe. Backlashes to the pace of this change have inevitably flared up, but the floodgates have been opened and the tide of this change is irreversible.
For these reasons, I find it hard to accept Juan’s premise regarding the United States breaking apart. He uses Germany as an example of how fast a change can occur, but for me the most astonishing aspect of the reunification of Germany was not how quickly it occurred but that it actually took so many years for it to happen.
Other examples such as Spain, Quebec and Yugoslavia have very little in common with the United States. The US needed to be held together by force only one time in its history, and the cultural reasons for that division have for the most part long since disappeared.
Strong differences may abound between us, but United States is one of the most nationalistic countries in the world today and surely this strong affiliation will overcome any particular divisions, at least in the foreseeable future.
Humans are inherently tribal in nature, be it our affinity to the local team, political party, religion or whichever group we end up associating with. This tribal urge is a powerful and historically dangerous emotion/instinct (or beneficial depending on your particular point of view).
One thing has become apparent, at least to some of us in the Liberty Movement, it is that this basic tribal instinct/emotion has been used to manipulate and control us. The Democrat/Republican flag waving has been used to blind us to the fact that the parties are the same, actually not that unlike your favorite professional sports teams, working to fill the pockets of their owners with your money.
Hopefully, this economic crisis will be the opportunity for the Liberty Movement to shed light on this corruption of our political system and lead to some real changes for the better.

Use this site:
http://www.tragedyandhope...

Re: Nonviolence & Michael's comment

They say possession is 9/10ths and they are right. We have the power--violence is not necessary.

DP conversation is key to our ability to develop ways to show others...

This guy annoys me...why does everyone in this crowd think he's so f'ing funny?

I dont think this should be onthe front page.

the Tea parties are defiantly positive, and they are not as divisive as the rest of the crap thats going on these days.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

Douglas(Oakland,CA)

I wanted to know who the 5% are that are "neither Republicans nor Democrats" that he seemed to imply were a destabilizing force. The facts seem to suggest that the other 95% have been running the country into the ground, so I'm not sure where he was going with that...

Partial reply to your introduction below.

I have copied some of your comments for ease of reference.

My overall impression of your comments/conclusions is that you have arrived back to where the Founders were but I wonder if you have made that connection.

"In the course of our talks, we have tried to imagine how localized economies and local money could work."

A philosophy based on the individual. Moving toward more authority/power/control residing at the level of the individual rather than the long trend, in this country, of authority/power/control moving further from the level of the individual.

"We have argued the value of government regulation versus the responsibilities of the individual. What we really see is the idea of human scale being a core value and that imagining a system of governance that can operate in a modern world at a human scale is a monumental challenge."

Again, at the level of the individual. I think that is key and I agree with your considering that approach, the approach at our nations birth.
I mean no offense in any of my comments to you, I trust you truly have the goal of facilitating what is best for all. I concur with looking for solutions from a perspective as close as possible to the level of the individual, I believe the notion that the "modern" world is a consideration in the solutions process is flawed. I will likely support that comment further in later replies but please consider that basic human needs and drives have not changed since the dawn of humanity nor are they likely to change in the foreseeable future. With that in mind, achieving a system of governance
which operates on a human scale is not a challenge to devise because a group of very selfless, intelligent and wise humans have already provide clear guidance, we merely need implement and adhere to that guidance.

"For a while I have been of the belief that America is really 5 countries trying to find common purpose in a 230 year old dream. The nation state we created had a whole bunch of compromises built in to help keep the slave states aligned with the trading states. But, at heart, I really believe there are severe divisions which can be defined as cultures which keep us apart. I have written about this in a blog called Cultural Confederacies http://eeyorewasanoptimis...."

Within the cultural divisions you speak of here do you notice division at a lower level, toward the level of the individual? That is, think of the person you find yourself in most agreement with, do the two of you still have areas of disagreement?

"It was wonderful when I came across the Enriquez video at the top of this thread, because we realized there were major thinkers considering this option of national devolution. Michael got excited as well. Of course it is true that at the end of the talk Eriquez gives a warning that such devolution is not to be desired but will happen unless we learn to talk to each other. But that was on the heels of a remarkably lucid argument on why such a break up will probably happen.

I, on the other hand, think that we would be ultimately much happier if we were to break up into more manageable "countries". Within this structure, imagining political structures that could bridge key divides might be more possible. Old hates that go back to before the Civil War could be removed from the manipulation of public debate. The control of our money system would need to be redesigned. The impetus to war would be diminished because we would no longer be subsumed into one integrated military industrial state."

Again, movement back toward the individual, away from more control/power residing at levels increasingly more remote and detached from the individual. More manageable countries; smaller, more local governing divisions-like States? Your thinking along the lines of increasing harmony by not swimming into pre-existing divisions, cultural or other divisions is dead on. Taking that further, would not facilitating each individual birds freedom to flock to their natural flock be an improvement to remotely and arbitrarily establishing a set number of common culture harmony districts. If not impeding such a process is best, does that not suggest that thinking in terms of remote "management" of individuals, no matter how local, causes more problems than it seeks to eliminate.

"One other thing in our discussion today brought about this addition to your thread. For a long time, it has seemed to me that much of this site's direction focuses on what makes people angry and afraid (the Fed, corporate controls, the wars). What I haven't heard clearly is the formation of a positive vision of what happens going forward. Where are the modern versions of Locke, Paine, Rousseau and Jefferson who created the dreams of the Revolution."

They are here in a sense. Not reinventing those wheels but recognizing that our way was lost by deviating from their guidance in major ways rather than living that guidance and allowing small, incremental improvements and refinements over time within their well conceived framework. That framework is at the human/individual scale discussed in your comment.

"I know Dr. Paul is all about Liberty, but I that seems a bit squishy to me, since in historical terms I enjoy a lot of liberty. What I don't enjoy is the ability of the banker class to decide that their personal liberty is improved if they ship jobs overseas or milk the treasury of our taxes. But to change that situation might require limits on the liberties of the privileged classes.

As Hugo reminded the French, the laws make it illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under the bridges. So maybe the means of discussing the possibility of the next level of changes has to be more focused on how we need to build a future that contains more opportunities, equity and possibility. Is that a discussion which could happen here?"

I believe you are very close to achieving the solution you seek. The privileged classes got that way because the history of the world is overwhelming the history of power, by various means, aggregating into the hands of the few. Power begets wealth, Wealth begets power. I suggest the simple solution is to keep the power of one human over another as small as possible. The smallest degree of power over others possible/achievable is a system with each only wielding power over oneself-power residing at the level of the individual. Fortunately, the means to achieve that dispersion of power is already in place.

Thanks again for coming. I believe I speak for us all when I say I hope you will stay.

The aggressors have fired several shots across our bow-WACO, Weaverly family, JFK, 9/11-all assassinations and false flags. Not to mention the police state.

Still they pushed the patriot act and the Iraqi war onto the deluded masses. We've been partially to blame, not only the cops, judges and politicians who keep these lies going but also the people who could care less about it all, get a third mortgage to pay for a boat and wonder why our country's gone to crap. While we've been entertained to death and been gorged on krispy kreme burgers they've robbed us blind.

Still we haven't had our Tianemen square moment. The British fired the first shots in lexington. When they come for our guns and our front line patriots-which lindsey williams has said are the second to last and the last things they will do-then pockets of our country will have a choice.

You were born in 1968-when JFK, our last real president, was assasinated by George H.W. Bush amongst others. That was a time when America was moving back to the silver standard. Instead we got HMO's, a fiat currency, a CIA out of control, an irresponsible cold war and subsequent huge debt thanks in large part to Nixon.

Before the first revolution there was a decade long of letter writing and greivances presented to the King. The internet has somewhat increased the speed and connectivity of our 2nd revolution, but still people don't know what to do. We don't have to hunt to supplement our food like they did not even 100 years ago. We haven't had the harsh experiences to figure out how to manage our own.

In order to win we have to get dirty and get ready. We also have to think of new ways of circumventing the current systems. Buy local, don't use insurance for doctors, stop using dollars, make a mockery of the political system while putting in politicians. It's going to be a battle waged inside the system and around it, but preferably not with guns.

Lindsey Williams has predicted the final crash is in 2011-2012. At that time most everyone will work for the government (looking at my taxes it seems i already do). I believe his word and I'm thinking up new systems to work outside of what we have right now. Anyone else better be doing the same.

I agree with many of the posters below, that Enrique's conclusion is flawed - that we should all just try to get along to save the Union.

The real questions are: Should we try to save the union, and if so how? If not, then what?

The tremendous infighting in this country is ripping it apart, and has been for as long as I have been alive. I was born in '68 during the height of the Vietnam war. Nixon bankrupted the country by going off the gold standard. I came of political age under Reagan - during the height of the Cold War. Reagan bankrupted it again, turning this country from the greatest creditor to the greatest debtor. And here we are again, in the never ending "War on Terror."

Did anyone notice the figure of the national debt in the video: 7.8 trillion. Today it is close to 12 trillion. That means it increased 50% in 3 years! It is going exponential.

Our priorities as a country are screwed up and have been for as long as I can remember. The protests of the 60's may have ended the Vietnam war, but look what came later. More war. No wonder people are apathetic and no longer protest. It doesn't work. No wonder half the people of the country don't vote. It doesn't work either. There is an implicit understanding that

Secession is a peaceful act. The question is how will the Federal Government respond (this time)?

From what I see, we are fast approaching a fork in the road:

Down one fork is a totalitarian USA, with the federal government imposing an iron grip over the citizens of the country, much like the former Soviet Union. (But how would the government pay the troops to enforce it? It is already broke.)

Down the other fork is liberty and freedom, and a second golden age for the United States. But the unity cannot be achieved by force. This is one of the reasons the country is breaking down. Many Americans are living in a country they don't want to live in.

Obviously, my preference is for number 2. Ever since it was born, the federal government has done nothing but grow. It is completely unresponsive to the people. It is ruled by special interests (corporations). It is abusive to its citizens. It has saddled us with debts we never agreed to. Is there any hope that we can change it? Look at what we've gotten so far from the "Change" president.

In school I learned an important trick about answering true / false test questions. If any part of the question is false, the entire question is false. The trick doesn't work so well in real life, where things are infinitely more complex.

The conclusion of this video is false, but it doesn't invalidate the whole thing.

The most hopeful part is that a totalitarian state like East Germany, can fall in 9 days. Here today, gone tomorrow. The Federal Government may look like a leviathan, but leviathans come and go. This is the most important message of the video.

The other thing to remember, which is why I put it in the title, "Tea parties can have unexpected consequences." Just a reminder that once we put the ball in motion, there is no turning back, and there is no telling how the ball will bounce or where it will land.

That is what revolutions are all about. There is a lot of dissatisfaction in this country that is waiting to boil over - not just Ron Paul supporters. The disillusioned former Obama supporters like my friend Dan are a huge group with effectively no voice at this point. They mobilized during the election, and now they feel they got taken for a ride.

Even within our own camp, there is the debate over the role of Glenn Beck and the Fox News Tea Party crowd taking over "our" revolution. They're much bigger.

Well, like politics, revolutions make for strange bedfellows as well.

The country is getting ripe, friends. Events are moving quickly and nothing should surprise us.

----------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
`Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life'- Aristophanes -

Misses the most fundamental points, the reason behind the success of the US, and doesn't even bother questioning whether or not it might in fact be desirable to have sovereignty at the local level.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the title of this post as the the liberty movement is a uniting one.

This was another excellent presentation. However, the logic of his conclusion is not very thoughtful. He assumes that uniformity from place to place is somehow a desirable goal. An important reason this country prospered for so long is precisely because we celebrate our cultural and political divisions. Anybody that can't see that the difference between the economic condition of California and Texas is not attributable in large part to the political philosophy of most Texans (Juan's Mythology) is blind to important cultural differences in our country. In July, the Economist (not a right-wing publication) compared the economies of Texas and California and came to the same conclusion. For example, Texas created approximately 80% of all new jobs for the ENTIRE United States in 2008 acoording to the Economist. Texas is not a myth. Texas is real.

Is big enough to take everything you have. Without the FED and the IRS the United States would do quite well. END THE FED !!!!!!!!!!!
Tell your Senators and Reps to support Senate Bill 604 and House Resolution 1207 respectively

"...we have to stop some of the political debate, some of the financial debate and fix our education system..."

Today's financial debate is our hope of saving this country.

I think what he was referring to was the partisan puppet show that is offered on nightly cable news entertainment, but the solution was not clearly described and is very open to interpretation.

My concern is, who is the 10% he's talking about. Could it be those with the revolutionary spirit. Borders to me are not as important as the respect we have for individual rights and Constitutional law. I'd say 90% of the populace is willing to ignore some aspect of that in the hopes of political expediency.

Watch over 500 Activist-Issue Films Online, www.filmsforaction.org

The desirability of putting aside “false” divisions are almost tautological, and can easily be misinterpreted as a call for less acceptance of diversity, or more “we must” style centralization. Fundamental to the establishment of freedom is the recognition that there is no “we”. Just 300 million independent yous and mes. The only thing that ought to matter in evaluating and choosing between two possible courses of action, including whether to embrace “divisiveness” or not, is to what extent they preserve the integrity of the individual vis-à-vis others that choose to impose on him/her.

As an example, it’s all too easy to interpret “putting aside false divisions” to mean being antagonistic towards movements attempting to splinter the country up into individual autonomous states. Despite the very real possibility that this may dramatically increase the opportunities people have to gain more liberty.

If by the above statement you instead mean we need to cast aside the false but irrelevant divisions that causes people to take sides in a meaningless struggle between supposedly different, but in reality quite the same, oppressive government, then I have no problem with it. But, while this may well be too obvious to bother mentioning for You, many people out there interpret casting aside divisions to mean we must further homogenize and be better “team players”, which is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

The most important reason that "the united States of America" have been able to remain a single nation for so long has been our freedom to live in independent states. Freedoms of association and religion have allowed us to co-exist without fracturing the nation along religious and ethnic lines.

The "melting pot" nature of our nation was actually facilitated by our ability to assimilate different groups when possible or remain "separate but equal" when that was not possible.

Unfortunately, we have been fed the idea that forced integration facilitates diversity and ethnic or religious harmony. That has NEVER been the case, in any nation in history. That is one reason why nations have tended to fracture so often. "Democracy" does NOT counter that trend. If anything it aggravates it when the majority tries to impose its will at the expense of the natural rights of the minorities. (This is the real reason why the political insider's nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have and will remain such dismal failures.)

This will continue to do be the trend unless tyrannical governments are established to counter that trend, or until constitutional republics are formed allowing diversity to exist within a federal framework.

In fact, our biggest fear should NOT be the dissolution of the United States, but the establishment of an Orwellian "New World Order" into which the U.S. is assimilated as a "preserved" but meaningless shell of a nation.

Far from aggravating tensions, the re-establishment of the individual states' tenth amendment rights is the U.S.A.'s last best hope of remaining a sovereign nation.

******************************
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

Natural Law and Natural Rights

http://jim.com/rights.htm...

In the spirit of trying to address one problem Enriquez talks about, I've invited my friend Dan our discussion of the video. After all, he's the one who sent it.

Dan is good friend of mine, lives in the next town over, and we get together for lunch every few weeks. We talk about all the that the DPers are taking about, but he isn't a member here (yet).

Dan also happens to be a flaming liberal, though recently he has morped into a disillusioned (former?) Obama supporter. At lunch, I keep him posted on all the latest Ron Paul news, and he keeps me informed on the liberal side of things. Much of our thinking overlaps.

Recently we've been thinking about how to build a coalition between the progressives & libertarians who seem to have so much in common.

Dan recently got back from Pop Tech (which is like the TED of the east coast), and so tipped me off to the above video via his blog, Eeyore Was an Optimist.

I suggested we continue the conversation online but warned him that sometimes people here don't like new people, and especially new, liberal people.

Please make my friend Danogenes feel welcome at the Daily Paul. He's not a troll.

We are both of the opinion that what the country is facing now is dire. We have to find a way to put aside the false divisions in order to be able to talk and together find our way to a solution.