the "make a noise" protest

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: The current set up is designed to transfer wealth from the majority to the minority. Whatever it takes to reverse that and harness our natural resources in the common good is what we need. Otherwise we could find that a war is won and mysteriously the spoils of the war are all in the hands of the people who brought us to this point.

Why won't this Government do the obvious and raise higher level income taxes?

How many Cabinet members have Anglo Irish Loans - or more to the point - had them at the time of the Banks Guarantee?

What difference would that make, the loans, if any, would still have to be repaid.

They don't want to raise any more taxes this year because they've already taken 4 billion out of the economy. This year's budget in December will see further tax increases and probably a widening of the tax base..

Guest

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: The current set up is designed to transfer wealth from the majority to the minority. Whatever it takes to reverse that and harness our natural resources in the common good is what we need. Otherwise we could find that a war is won and mysteriously the spoils of the war are all in the hands of the people who brought us to this point.

Why won't this Government do the obvious and raise higher level income taxes?

How many Cabinet members have Anglo Irish Loans - or more to the point - had them at the time of the Banks Guarantee?

What difference would that make, the loans, if any, would still have to be repaid.

They don't want to raise any more taxes this year because they've already taken 4 billion out of the economy. This year's budget in December will see further tax increases and probably a widening of the tax base..

Conflict of interest, perchance? The possibility is there. It would be wise and healthy to scotch any speculation by declaring any interests (of if there were none, making that clear).

Guest

How about getiing your 5hit together and trying something. Too many long self-indulgent speaches 'round these parts as of late. Storm the battlements spirit required...Budgies...Crows..the Gulls...get them goin'. Make some fuckin' noise

Guest

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:: How about getiing your 5hit together and trying something. Too many long self-indulgent speaches 'round these parts as of late. Storm the battlements spirit required...Budgies...Crows..the Gulls...get them goin'. Make some fuckin' noise

Very good Seathrún, but don't be leading from behind... Smile

I'll be listening for your dustbin lid, be sure that you will hear mine.

Guest

Storm the battlements. Grand. Then what?

Guest

Kate P wrote:: Storm the battlements. Grand. Then what?

Behead the knaves, sully their women, loot their piggery.

After that .... Question

Guest

Kate P wrote:: Storm the battlements. Grand. Then what?

That's the question all right Kate.

Guest

Kate P wrote:: Storm the battlements. Grand. Then what?

Yeah - this was the point at which I started attracting bitchery on p.ie. Then what?

Guest

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:: Storm the battlements. Grand. Then what?

Yeah - this was the point at which I started attracting bitchery on p.ie. Then what?

We have a election, like the one we had 18 months ago, but this time we will get the result we want and the elected government will have 5 years to Govern...no, wait...that won't work...this is what we’ll do, we'll consult with a wide range of internet views....but only listen to those on the side of the angels.....no, we can't do that either, that would mean FG would be out of the equation, they don't do angels in FG....., but without FG that would mean we would be left with the unthinkable....no, give me a few minutes... I'll have to get back to you later, there’s something not right here.

Guest

tonys wrote:

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:: Storm the battlements. Grand. Then what?

Yeah - this was the point at which I started attracting bitchery on p.ie. Then what?

We have a election, like the one we had 18 months ago, but this time we will get the result we want and the elected government will have 5 years to Govern...no, wait...that won't work...this is what we’ll do, we'll consult with a wide range of internet views....but only listen to those on the side of the angels.....no, we can't do that either, that would mean FG would be out of the equation, they don't do angels in FG....., but without FG that would mean we would be left with the unthinkable....no, give me a few minutes... I'll have to get back to you later, there’s something not right here.

Well, I've already outlined my preferences - they're not for any particular set of policies:

Quote :: Me, I want to see more transparency. I want to see more citizen oversight, more electoral responsibility. I want better corruption legislation, and an end to the culture of small-scale corruption. I want to see us taking responsibility for our electoral choices. I want us not to go back to sleep.

In other words, sadly, what I want is a change in the electorate's tolerances - not to simply elect a new government and tolerate them doing exactly the same kind of stuff simply because they're not the old government.

Guest

Hmmm. I have this unpopular theory that the problem isn't necessarily with the government it's with the electorate who as a rule and in the main want anyone else to take responsibility for the way things are. The mob are on the lookout for one scapegoat after another and the refusal to look inwards means we're destined to make the same mistakes again - not in the people we elect, but in the values that inform our daily lives.

There is a culture in this country where everyone wants to have the inside track, to know someone in the know, to have a TD to ask to swing something, to write a letter on their behalf, to make a representation here or there, to have a friend who'll tell us how to get something we're not entitled to - whether that's planning for a one-off house, a welfare payment (or three) or to get us out of paying a parking fine. Other countries don't live like that. Maybe it was a coping strategy of value during the 800 Years of Oppression but it has lost its usefulness now.

I do believe that some of the people who attain high office in this country are very good at what we want them to be good at. They take the short cuts, know the people in the know and when everything is going well, as a rule we turn a blind eye to what we know isn't entirely kosher. Then, when the tide turns we as a people, in the main turn on them. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar has been on my mind quite a lot lately. Knew we not Pompey, indeed... The mob is the star of that show - and the mob, as we should know from recent past experience, rarely gets it right, so forgive me if I don't jump on any bandwagons and won't be making noise.

Guest

Kate P wrote:: Hmmm. I have this unpopular theory that the problem isn't necessarily with the government it's with the electorate who as a rule and in the main want anyone else to take responsibility for the way things are. The mob are on the lookout for one scapegoat after another and the refusal to look inwards means we're destined to make the same mistakes again - not in the people we elect, but in the values that inform our daily lives.

There is a culture in this country where everyone wants to have the inside track, to know someone in the know, to have a TD to ask to swing something, to write a letter on their behalf, to make a representation here or there, to have a friend who'll tell us how to get something we're not entitled to - whether that's planning for a one-off house, a welfare payment (or three) or to get us out of paying a parking fine. Other countries don't live like that. Maybe it was a coping strategy of value during the 800 Years of Oppression but it has lost its usefulness now.

I do believe that some of the people who attain high office in this country are very good at what we want them to be good at. They take the short cuts, know the people in the know and when everything is going well, as a rule we turn a blind eye to what we know isn't entirely kosher. Then, when the tide turns we as a people, in the main turn on them. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar has been on my mind quite a lot lately. Knew we not Pompey, indeed... The mob is the star of that show - and the mob, as we should know from recent past experience, rarely gets it right, so forgive me if I don't jump on any bandwagons and won't be making noise.

The problem being that the mob will not lack for cheerleaders whose interest is serving up their pre-packaged solutions, and those cheerleaders won't want the mob stopping to think. Since the mob isn't all that keen on stopping to think anyway...

Guest

This all sounds pretty patronising to me. Most people likely to turn out to protest against government are well informed about what is happening. Their IQs are not necessarily any lower than yours nor are they evil, self serving people. They are at least bothering to get out of their chairs and do something to express their views of the situation.

There is a responsibility there for everyone to get stuck in in this situation in the way they see fit. Public demonstration is also a democratic right.

Disciplined and peaceful demonstrations are not a mob.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: This all sounds pretty patronising to me. Most people likely to turn out to protest against government are well informed about what is happening. Their IQs are not necessarily any lower than yours nor are they evil, self serving people. They are at least bothering to get out of their chairs and do something to express their views of the situation.

There is a responsibility there for everyone to get stuck in in this situation in the way they see fit. Public demonstration is also a democratic right.

Disciplined and peaceful demonstrations are not a mob.

No, they don't become a mob until it's too late to do anything about it, by then they're already a mob.

Guest

Better a mob on the street where you can see it than a cabal of billion euro robbers behind closed doors.

Guest

I beg to disagree. Most people who turn out to protest are not well informed. They know a lot about their particular situations but have very little grasp of anything bigger than themselves. There's no question of IQ and none of people being evil or self-serving - I never suggested there was. However, a gang of people who blithely follow what is the populist line of thinking without considering - and you acknowledged as much yourself earlier - what the next step is, is running amok without a head.

Public demonstration is a right, but it's a responsibility to be informed and responsible when demonstrating and rights are never conferred without the attendant responsibilities.

The vast, vast majority of people out there don't have a notion what recapitalisation means, don't know what the levy involves and don't read into the background to decisions before lashing out at them. Blindly throwing shit at every group in society, whether it's the public sector, the banks, the government... is hugely counterproductive. No one prepares to take aim before firing and no hurt is achieved. It's better in my opinion to choose one's battles than to exhaust oneself needlessly getting involved in every popular skirmish or adding one's voice to every diatribe.

Bothering to get out of their chairs is not something to be proud of - doing something to make a difference is but you have to know what the difference is which you seek to make and what the repercussions of that change are. I see precious little evidence of any thinking that looks that far forward.

If stopping to think and consider rather than jump up and down, making noise with no purpose outside of itself is deserving of being designated 'patronising' I can live with that. It's no less patronising than assuming that those who don't jump on the communal bandwagon are worthy of disdain.

Guest

Quote :: I beg to disagree. Most people who turn out to protest are not well informed. They know a lot about their particular situations but have very little grasp of anything bigger than themselves. There's no question of IQ and none of people being evil or self-serving I never suggested there was. However, a gang of people who blithely follow what is the populist line of thinking without considering - and you acknowledged as much yourself earlier - what the next step, is running amok without a head.

What is your opinion based on? And I acknowledged no such thing.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: This all sounds pretty patronising to me. Most people likely to turn out to protest against government are well informed about what is happening. Their IQs are not necessarily any lower than yours nor are they evil, self serving people. They are at least bothering to get out of their chairs and do something to express their views of the situation.

There is a responsibility there for everyone to get stuck in in this situation in the way they see fit. Public demonstration is also a democratic right.

Disciplined and peaceful demonstrations are not a mob.

Disciplined and peaceful protests might as well be a mob - and will become a mob - if they haven't thought any further than getting the government out . The standard term for such unthinking protests is 'mob rule', because it doesn't matter how individually intelligent or well informed the protesters are once they're simply "protesting the current situation". It is exactly such situations of inchoate protest that play to the rise of well-disciplined extremists.

If we go down the road of "something must be done" without having any idea of what that something is, we open the protests to being captured by people who are willing to put forward an appealing "something" at the right time.

See "How to control your herd of humans" at New Scientist.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P wrote:: Storm the battlements. Grand. Then what?

That's the question all right Kate.

I took this to be an acknowledgement that there's no consensus or understanding of what the consequences of storming the battlements are. If it means otherwise, I'm happy to be enlightened.

My opinion that most people who turn out to protest in a 'make a noise' situation like this one are not informed is based on looking at the people who are doing the protesting - on discussion fora, radio and tv discussions, in general conversation. In fact, I've yet to see evidence that more than the smallest minority have a clue what they're proposing or why, or whether it makes any sense because questioning produces more questions than answers.

Anyone who engages in this particular protest is simply making noise for the sake of it. Tell me, what is the desired effect? To make the government listen? To what? To effect what change? To change the government? What exactly is the point of this? If you can show me that this protest - or those proposed by the unions in the coming weeks have a targetted purpose, a stated, specific aim that the majority are buying into, then I'll gladly withdraw anything I've said. But the burden of proof is not on me here, cactus _ I'm not the one proposing anything.

Guest

yehbut_nobut wrote:

ibis wrote:

905 wrote:: Yes, I can see that working. Maybe if we let off a few fireworks as well we might scare them off.

I think the polls are a more effective barometer of public opinion.

And when was anger ever a good reason to act? Aren't you supposed to not act in anger?

Unsurprisingly, I've just attracted heavy criticism on p.ie from the usual quarters for suggesting that maybe we needed to think first.

Acting without thinking always leads to problems (I believe that was one purpose of the Nazi rallies - to dull peoples thinking faculties and have them acting out of unsconcious "will" only - but thats another for thread...)

The question is, when will we know the time for "thought" has concluded, and the time to put those thoughts into action has begun? Are we supposed to sit tight, mind our manners and wait for the ballot box? Cause Government parties say (with an air of smugness) that it wont be till 2012.

I want to save my country before then

Sometimes too much blueprinting and planning can be a bad thing.

" unsconcious "will" stuff, that's acting without thinking, what's needed is thinking whilst acting...(I think!)
Turning up to protest, talking (in person!) and, seeing-what-happens, can lead to all sorts of good ideas and connections*. (it can turn the other way of course but that's can happen either way,with or without apathy)

Having said that it's time to educate yourself on alternatives to the failed mainstream economics of neoliberalism and at the same time to not go down the similarly failed routes of the past.

Latin America is useful in this regard. Chavez and Co used simple booklets to get summarised proposals across outside of a very hostile media. Mobile phones produced he extra-ordinary protests against the Iraq war. Flash mobs are created as a whim online.

And I agree with CF, join your local trade union, support media alternatives, get involved in alternative financial institutions like credit unions, try and get active in one new progressive activities a week etc. If more people did that, then what you have is a genuine movement.

*
(Although some people prefer the herd to stay silent, down their heads in the sand and vote for their pre-packaged and purposefully dense plans....(cough, Lisbon being one of course) )

Guest

ibis wrote:: See "How to control your herd of humans" at New Scientist.

Damn, I was just about to post that link. Sad

Lets not forget mobs can storm the aristos in the palace as much as march in unison under a Nazi banner.

Guest

This is all nonsense and hysteria. Where is there any evidence of people demonstrating to get the government out who don't have a preferred option? A General Election would resolve that in any case.

The last couple of posts by Ibis, Kate P and tonys contain the biggest collection of straw men that I have ever seen gathered together in one place. Smile

Guest

[quote="Kate P"][quote="cactus flower"]

Kate P wrote:: Storm the battlements. Grand. Then what?[/quote]

That's the question all right Kate.[/quote]

I took this to be an acknowledgement that there's no consensus or understanding of what the consequences of storming the battlements are. If it means otherwise, I'm happy to be enlightened.

My opinion that most people who turn out to protest in a 'make a noise' situation like this one are not informed is based on looking at the people who are doing the protesting - on discussion fora, radio and tv discussions, in general conversation. In fact, I've yet to see evidence that more than the smallest minority have a clue what they're proposing or why, or whether it makes any sense because questioning produces more questions than answers.

Anyone who engages in this particular protest is simply making noise for the sake of it. Tell me, what is the desired effect? To make the government listen? To what? To effect what change? To change the government? What exactly is the point of this? If you can show me that this protest - or those proposed by the unions in the coming weeks have a targetted purpose, a stated, specific aim that the majority are buying into, then I'll gladly withdraw anything I've said. But the burden of proof is not on me here, cactus _ I'm not the one proposing anything.

What it means is that there is the utmost urgency in developing answers to that question. The battlements are crumbling with or without demonstrations. The question now is exactly "what then" - what change is needed? I agree with Pax that this requires both practical engagement and serious study of alternative systems. I also agree that sometimes events don't give a lot of time for developing solutions and that has to be done on the hoof. The events that are taking place now are not happening because of anyone's ideas, good or bad, they are happening because there is an objective break down in the finanancial system. When the response to that is injurious to the mass of peoples' well-being, you will get mass demonstrations, as we already saw last Autumn and will see again. There is absolutely no point in blaming them taking part in all kinds of demonstrations, occupations and symbolic protests.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: This is all nonsense and hysteria. Where is there any evidence of people demonstrating to get the government out who don't have a preferred option? A General Election would resolve that in any case.

The last couple of posts by Ibis, Kate P and tonys contain the biggest collection of straw men that I have ever seen gathered together in one place.

Straw people, cactus and I hope those crazy demonstrators who carry cans of petrol are far away from us.

Quote :: What it means is that there is the utmost urgency in developing answers to that question. The battlements are crumbling with or without demonstrations. The question now is exactly "what then" - what change is needed? I agree with Pax that this requires both practical engagement and serious study of alternative systems. I also agree that sometimes events don't give a lot of time for developing solutions and that has to be done on the hoof. The events that are taking place now are not happening because of anyone's ideas, good or bad, they are happening because there is an objective break down in the finanancial system. When the response to that is injurious to the mass of peoples' well-being, you will get mass demonstrations, as we already saw last Autumn and will see again. There is absolutely no point in blaming them taking part in all kinds of demonstrations, occupations and symbolic protests.

I'm not blaming people for protesting - it's the natural response, but not necessarily the most productive one.

You say the protests are happening because of 'an objective breakdown in the financial system' - what then (and I ask this question again), are they supposed to achieve?

The existence of protests or the desire to protest is not being questioned here, cactus. What I'm asking is; what is the point? What are people hoping to achieve? What is the end result, what are the consequences and what difference is it going to make? I don't ask this from a pessimistic perspective but from a pragmatic one. The hysteria is all one one side - and it's not mine.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: This is all nonsense and hysteria. Where is there any evidence of people demonstrating to get the government out who don\'t have a preferred option? A General Election would resolve that in any case.

The last couple of posts by Ibis, Kate P and tonys contain the biggest collection of straw men that I have ever seen gathered together in one place.

A general election will change nothing but the faces - it won't change the way politics is done in this country, and that's the problem. FF will be back at the next election, or the one after.

» "Limerick will buck the national trend and undergo a boom for the next ten years"
» Nationalisation Watch / Govt. rethinking 3.5 billion bailout for the banks?
» "In the Future there will be Robots" ... // Ryanair to archive the check-in desk
» "Not the first corrupt Irish leader, and doubtless, not the last" - Jeremy Paxman