Election of Leadership of the Movement

[LibertyInJeopardy]

(This a new title for this thread. I think the previous title confused people. Please forgive the duplication.)

There is strength in numbers but the critical point the Founders understood is that those numbers must elect representatives to speak on their behalf and focus all of their interests into one room to be heard and negotiated - thus the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention.

Here is the seed of an idea:

Hold state wide elections for Representatives to a new Constitutional Convention where the question of the Violations of the Constitution by the Current Government will be considered, so that that elected body may then consider and resolve upon an appropriate course of action. The results of their Convention may then be relayed to the greater numbers who elected them.

How to pay for the elections? The same way do everything. Money bombs and volunteers.

Instead of having people march on washington, have them march to their state capitals to vote for their state's representative to the new Constitutional Convention.

Who will be candidates? Anyone.

When to hold the election? Nov 5?

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

No one else thinks this would be an important step??

 

[noxagol]

Centralized control is bad. That's how you corrupt a group, take over its power centers. If we are decentralized, it makes it that much harder to corrupt the movement. Viva la leaderless resistance!

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

Centralized control is bad. That's how you corrupt a group, take over its power centers. If we are decentralized, it makes it that much harder to corrupt the movement. Viva la leaderless resistance!

That's why you'd have regular elections. Yearly perhaps.

By the way, don't think there aren't leaders. There are natural leaders, but right now they are scattered. If a natural leader emerges to the forefront of the movement without formal process there will be no formal process for replacement or removal of that leader should that person be corrupted.

 

[noxagol]

That's why you'd have regular elections. Yearly perhaps.

No. It's a bad idea. All of these attempts to copy the structure of what we are fighting, the political parties and what not, all fail because they all get corrupted or marginalized. Don't put a name to it, they can't identify you and corrupt you and marginalize you. If we become faceless, numberless, and nameless, they can't fight us.

 

[silverhandorder]

It is not necesssary if our current leaders (people we listen to for advice) stop attracting people some one else will. It has its advantages and disadvantages. I personally can't see how elections of leaders for movement will change anything at all. They are not like FED govt they cant make you volunteer.

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

No. It's a bad idea. All of these attempts to copy the structure of what we are fighting, the political parties and what not, all fail because they all get corrupted or marginalized. Don't put a name to it, they can't identify you and corrupt you and marginalize you. If we become faceless, numberless, and nameless, they can't fight us.

If we are faceless, numberless, nameless, and leaderless we cannot win a fight against them.

This is not a model based on parties. It is model based on our struggle for independence from Britain.

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

It is not necesssary if our current leaders (people we listen to for advice) stop attracting people some one else will. It has its advantages and disadvantages. I personally can't see how elections of leaders for movement will change anything at all. They are not like FED govt they cant make you volunteer.

One of the major disadvantages of the current arrangement can be explained with the effect of density. Right now we are gun powder scattered in the wind, popping and crackling as we pass pass by the flames of our burning constitution. What we need is to unify our actions and draw more like us together into greater density. If all that scattered powder were bound into a tight organization, only then could we expect to truly change the status quo.

If our movement becomes large enough leaders will inevitably emerge. One day we will have our own mini-establishment. We should elect our leaders and regularly replace them. If we do not establish such a process, loyalties will tend toward individuals and split the movement should there be disagreements.

 

[TruthAtLast]

Centralized control is bad. That's how you corrupt a group, take over its power centers. If we are decentralized, it makes it that much harder to corrupt the movement. Viva la leaderless resistance!

I agree with this principle (a la Freedom Force International) but the problems with decentralized movements is usually a lack of organization and focus. Our two major parties have the ability to mobilize vast amounts of human and financial resources due to their leadership structure. Companies have a organization structure so that plans can be delegated.

I think the founding fathers knew that a centralized leadership was required if the country was to succeed but ALSO knew of the problems that could arise from such centralization. They THOUGHT they solved that problem via the 3 branches of Government and a Constitution. But as brilliant as they were, I'm sure there are some changes they'd make to it if they were alive today. The Constitution often talks about the spirit of law and not the specifics of it.

I agree completely that a centralized leadership has huge risks of corruption and takeover that Edward Griffin describes so well here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

But I also think that a compromise can be created. Individual responsibility is gone in this country. Most people don't even vote for their representatives and those that do vote don't hold them accountable. In an age of massive media distraction, no one wants to spend the time. It isn't easy to keep up on all of the things the Government does.

I think a consortium of local organizations can set a general guideline for the big picture focus of the Movement. They serve more as an organizing body but doesn't force any decisions for the membership. In today's internet age, I believe having information easily available and organized is essential to allowing each individual to act quickly and focus resources where they can have the largest impact.

But a central online presence is dangerous and can be shut down quickly. So I would suggest an node-based website where anyone can download and host a mirror of the site anywhere in the world. Whenever information is updated on any site, it gets spawned across all nodes. This means that no single website can ever be taken down and cause us any harm. 1000 more copies of would already exist and 1000 more can be set up within hours. This duplicate content isn't good for Search Engine Optimization but I don't think that is our primary concern here.

So as far as another Continental Congress is concerned, I think the consortium approach might work a little better without having to spend lots of money on elections or give so much power to a single person to represent us. When sensitive topics are being discussed great care will need to be taken to be sure that the discussion group isn't infiltrated. But I'm sure those protections can be set up.

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

I agree with this principle (a la Freedom Force International) but the problems with decentralized movements is usually a lack of organization and focus. Our two major parties have the ability to mobilize vast amounts of human and financial resources due to their leadership structure. Companies have a organization structure so that plans can be delegated.

I think the founding fathers knew that a centralized leadership was required if the country was to succeed but ALSO knew of the problems that could arise from such centralization. They THOUGHT they solved that problem via the 3 branches of Government and a Constitution. But as brilliant as they were, I'm sure there are some changes they'd make to it if they were alive today. The Constitution often talks about the spirit of law and not the specifics of it.

I agree completely that a centralized leadership has huge risks of corruption and takeover that Edward Griffin describes so well here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

But I also think that a compromise can be created. Individual responsibility is gone in this country. Most people don't even vote for their representatives and those that do vote don't hold them accountable. In an age of massive media distraction, no one wants to spend the time. It isn't easy to keep up on all of the things the Government does.

I think a consortium of local organizations can set a general guideline for the big picture focus of the Movement. They serve more as an organizing body but doesn't force any decisions for the membership. In today's internet age, I believe having information easily available and organized is essential to allowing each individual to act quickly and focus resources where they can have the largest impact.

But a central online presence is dangerous and can be shut down quickly. So I would suggest an node-based website where anyone can download and host a mirror of the site anywhere in the world. Whenever information is updated on any site, it gets spawned across all nodes. This means that no single website can ever be taken down and cause us any harm. 1000 more copies of would already exist and 1000 more can be set up within hours. This duplicate content isn't good for Search Engine Optimization but I don't think that is our primary concern here.

So as far as another Continental Congress is concerned, I think the consortium approach might work a little better without having to spend lots of money on elections or give so much power to a single person to represent us. When sensitive topics are being discussed great care will need to be taken to be sure that the discussion group isn't infiltrated. But I'm sure those protections can be set up.

A consortium, yes, and never one man in control. Always a representative body of many - possibly one from each state.

I would contribute to a money bomb to fund a meeting of local movement leaders - but I firmly believe those leaders should be elected formally.

 

[silverhandorder]

In any case CFL website has option to nominate people for state representatives on the website. I think CFL is pretty good start for this consortium.

 

[jbuttell]

I believe THE most significant problem in our government, the people, is their lack of ability or motivation.... to hold elected officials accountable. It doesn't matter how great a constitution is, until we hold elected officials accountable for their actions, we'll never see the government live up to it intended potential.

We must strive for ways to hold these criminals accountable. Come no later than monday, we have to start slamming the Congress who voted "Yes" for the bailout bill.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well that's why you have boards that are elected in most organizations..trouble is...a faction can still come in and elect anyone they want..a couple of motivated people can surround themselves with people who really don't oppose anything they do. Therefore, a couple of people STILL have control. I say this because I saw it happen in an organization I am in right here. This is the way I would do it ...and this is the way I am going to do it. This is just me, I'm not telling anyone what to do.

I am going to get a few like minded people that I KNOW. No heirarchy, no non profit status.. no dues . We will pick an issue each...and spend our own time researching the issue and print our own copies of fliers to hand out and talk to as many people as we can. I am just soooo not into an organization heirarchy these days. It seems they always get corrupted by power./money greedy people. Even G. Edward Griffin's group has materials that everyone has to purchase in order to participate. I don't dig that. If he has a real mission, he would put the information up on the website, make it downloadable adn people can just take the resources for free and distribute them. I think if they want to take overall donations fine, but why charge a fee to join, donations AND charge people for the materials? That sounds like someone is trying to make money....not trying to spread a message. Tones

 

[vegaspilot03]

I am willing to lead the Las Vegas movement.i will some research on local movements, if any, and report back.

 

[sratiug]

Well that's why you have boards that are elected in most organizations..trouble is...a faction can still come in and elect anyone they want..a couple of motivated people can surround themselves with people who really don't oppose anything they do. Therefore, a couple of people STILL have control. I say this because I saw it happen in an organization I am in right here. This is the way I would do it ...and this is the way I am going to do it. This is just me, I'm not telling anyone what to do.

I am going to get a few like minded people that I KNOW. No heirarchy, no non profit status.. no dues . We will pick an issue each...and spend our own time researching the issue and print our own copies of fliers to hand out and talk to as many people as we can. I am just soooo not into an organization heirarchy these days. It seems they always get corrupted by power./money greedy people. Even G. Edward Griffin's group has materials that everyone has to purchase in order to participate. I don't dig that. If he has a real mission, he would put the information up on the website, make it downloadable adn people can just take the resources for free and distribute them. I think if they want to take overall donations fine, but why charge a fee to join, donations AND charge people for the materials? That sounds like someone is trying to make money....not trying to spread a message. Tones

Plenty of G. Edward Griffin's videos are available on the web for free. And you can be a member without paying dues.

 

[awake]

We need to think decentralized leadership.... we will be infiltrated and co opted otherwise...

 

[free.alive]

We do not need 'leaders', per se. We're much stronger with a locally-based organism that maintains fantastic communications networks, via phone, email and actual mail.

A couple of things are being considered in Washington State, but some are advocating we set up a state leadership and many of us want the state to remain locally led, with our state 'Coordinator' to be nothing more than a 'liaison' which has no actual executive power or decision making authority. Their only responsibility is to pass information from the C4L national to WA state's representatives from each county.

I think this is the strongest, most flexible and most just form of leadership - not to mention the general form which is most in accordance with the ideas which are fueling our movement.

We need no elected leadership - Keep it local. Let your representatives rotate and make sure they are always speaking on behalf of the consensus of your county's naturally-rising leaders at your state committees.

 

[SeanEdwards]

No. It's a bad idea. All of these attempts to copy the structure of what we are fighting, the political parties and what not, all fail because they all get corrupted or marginalized. Don't put a name to it, they can't identify you and corrupt you and marginalize you. If we become faceless, numberless, and nameless, they can't fight us.

Disciplined Roman legions were routinely able to defeat vastly larger hordes of disorganized barbarians. Organization and coordination is a significant force multiplier.

 

[silverhandorder]

Disciplined Roman legions were routinely able to defeat vastly larger hordes of disorganized barbarians. Organization and coordination is a significant force multiplier.

This does not apply to us. We are more like small cells of highly organized and motivated people. To start combining these cells, we will loose our communication first. This is why our military is broken up into commands. Then we will loose our ability to hit them from all sides. Remember during the Iowa how everyone would wait for orders instead of acting on their own?

A good anology would be this. How would organized and disciplined Roman troops deal with stealthy barbarians that come every night, kill all their sentries and poison their food and steal their supplies and also kill them in their tents?

 

[awake]

I would Agree, we must all get the sense of leading for small periods of time... Look for good ideas that come up all the time here, then step behind it at will.

We must all be able to lead when the time dictates...