Lech Walesa, in a commentary on the Occupy Wall Street Movement, said that before a movement sets out to overthrow a system of government, it should know what it wants to put in its place.
Those Occupy people, it seems to me just wanted more of the same, except they wanted to be among the ones receiving the plunder: Guaranteed jobs and guaranteed college education.
“The ‘right to labor,’ guarantied by the State, throws all power into the hands of the government. The individual becomes only the bold beggar, the claimant of governmental protection. No longer dependant upon himself, his right is to demand from government what, enfeebled by this individual imbecility, it is more than ever incapacitated from giving–and neither small nor limited are the demands thus entailed upon it.” Louisa McCord, Southern Quarterly Review (Oct. 1849).
Just more of the same with themselves being part of the problem, not part of the solution, is what the Occupy people were after, at least as I saw them portrayed on TV.
Helpful would be a constitutional amendment that puts corporate big business in the position of being only one of several masters of America, rather than, as at present, the one and only master of America. Perhaps then, there would be more jobs available.
The system is set up currently to run small business men and small farmers out of business and into the employment lines at the doors of the factories owned by corporate big business. Most of those factories have moved overseas, but the system is still doing what it is set up to do.
If we could get some politicians into Congress that support interests other than corporate big business, and ensure them a concurrent voice in deliberations and votes for legislation, we could get the system changed and give these Occupy people some opportunity for acquiring jobs. What they need is not guaranteed jobs but elimination of the tax structures and regulations that suppress job alternatives in America. In a word, what they need is freedom to do what they are capable of doing; freedom from enslavement by corporate big business.
John C. Calhoun suggested such an amendment to our constitution 150 years ago in his little book, A Disquisition on Government. He called for rule by a concurrent majority rather than by a mass majority.
How to achieve such? Well, if Washington was capable of reform, one means might be to amend the Constitution so that U. S. Representatives were elected at large within their states. North Carolina has, I believe 12 Representatives. Each North Carolina voter would vote for one candidate for the U. S. House. The 12 candidates who received the most votes would go to Washington.
Such a scheme would ensure a multi-party U. S. House of Representatives. The amendment would make it so that a bill, to pass the House, would have to receive not only a majority of individual votes, but also the vote of a majority of the political parties represented in the House, or the vote of the six (or 50) largest of the political parties represented in the House, or some such similar scheme.
This would make compromise necessary by the political parties that are creatures of corporate big business because under a sufficiently numerous multi-party system, not all parties would be creatures of corporate big business as today both parties are.
I said, if Washington were capable of reform. It isn’t. What then? Secession. Secession from the corrupt, imperialist, Washington regime.
Secession such as that by the 13 British colonies in America in 1776; the Spanish colonies in America in the 1830s; Bolivia, Equador, and Panama seceded from the United States of Columbia; Bangladesh from Pakistan; Lithuania, Latvia and other states from Russia in the 1990s; Slovakia and the Czech Republic; and recently, the Southern Sudan; and many others.
Then we write our own constitution.
George S. Crockett