Occupation Proposal

Criticisms, edits, etc, welcome.

The Occupation of Boulder County will begin on January 1st 2012. Our goal is to create a model community in Boulder based on the principles of participatory government, humanitarian ethics, and sustainable living. The founding members of this community will live on the lawn of the Boulder County Courthouse with all overflow directed towards nearby public parks.

We will rely on each other and work with local organizations to handle our community's needs such as food, shelter, health, and sanitation. By providing for the well being of every member of our community and embracing true free market and democratic principles, we will prove to the world that a sustainable, socially responsible, and truly free society is possible in the modern age.

During the interim period we will collect supplies, learn what laws we are breaking, prepare accordingly, build awareness, and seek public support.

Can you clarify what you mean by true free market principles?

Thanks,

Chris

Where the value of currency is not controlled by a central bank, instead is based on a commodity of some sort. Where the government only gets involved in private business in cases of fraud or criminal malfeasance.

Essentially where the government does not start fiddling around with the economy like we have today. Our entire monetary system is controlled by a single bank, we do not live in a free market economy.

Daniel,

thanks for the clarification. I am speaking only for myself. But I do not believe in a market economy. I know a lot of people in the Occupy Movement do, and I respect that. But there are also a lot of us who do not. The Occupy Movement has laissez faire capitalists, progressives, communists, democratic socialists, libertarian socialists etc.

Would you object to this slightly more broad and what I believe to be more inclusive language:

The Occupation of Boulder County will begin on January 1st 2012. Our
goal is to create a model community in Boulder based on the principles
of participatory democracy, humanitarian ethics, and sustainable
living. The founding members of this community will live on the lawn
of the Boulder County Courthouse with all overflow directed towards
nearby public parks.

We will rely on each other and work with local organizations to handle
our community's needs such as food, shelter, health, and sanitation.
By providing for the well being of every member of our community and
embracing true participatory democratic principles, we will prove to
the world that a sustainable, socially responsible, and truly free
society is possible in the modern age.

I have italicized the changes I have made.
I am not trying to advocate against free market principles with this change, I am attempting to use language that will speak to what we all agree on and leave out things we may not agree on.

Thoughts?

Chris

You make a good point about market principles, I think a change there is reasonable. However I disagree with the emphasis on democracy. I agree with the founding fathers in their distaste for pure democracy, I used the phrase participatory government to strike a middle ground.

How about this, changes italicized.

The Occupation of Boulder County will begin on January 1st 2012. Our
goal is to create a model community in Boulder based on the principles
of participatory government, humanitarian ethics, and sustainable
living. The founding members of this community will live on the lawn
of the Boulder County Courthouse with all overflow directed towards
nearby public parks.

We will rely on each other and work with local organizations to handle
our community's needs such as food, shelter, health, and sanitation.
By providing for the well being of every member of our community and
embracing democratic principles, we will prove to
the world that a sustainable, socially responsible, and truly free
society is possible in the modern age.

I'm just now discovering this forum. In addition to Daniel's vision, I wish we could be meeting with the City Manager regularly to put together policy changes for submission to the City Council. The Boulder City Council is actually very open and very progressive (and very smart). I don't think it is farfetched to view them in a friendly manner. Boulder City just passed an initiative saying that Corporations are NOT people by 74%. That initiative was placed on the ballot by a vote of the City Council. I don't think it is farfetched to think that they would support an idealized relationship between the Government and the Occupiers which could be duplicated everywhere. The sooner the better because every image on television of our people getting beaten up by police transmits a subliminal message that Occupiers are not law-abiding citizens. The political center, to which any political movement needs to appeal, views itself as law abiding. The police brutality is overshadowing the social justice message we are trying to portray.

Hey Daniel,

Last night at the GA you mentioned two dates different than the first that had significance. Could you add those to the discussion. I am not sure how we get everyone in the same discussion by having so many threads. I tried to start one overall thread but with posts already existing that's not happening. I think there has to be space for others to have their own proposals as well.

Also what is participatory government then?

We need to try to be inclusive here and there are a wide spectrum of views and we have to find common ground to operate in.

So far among the occupy group we are using the term democracy and 'direct democracy' and before we can adopt a proposal that is something other than that we may need to have a discussion about this topic to come to mutual understanding.

I agree with Lauren. I have a bachelors degree in Political Science and I'm lost regarding the distinction between these terminologies. So far, they seem nuanced and semantic - minor distinctions. I would like a description (maybe with web references) that explains why the distinction matters. If this is going to make its way into proposals to change the way that we arrive at consensus for our GA's then this should probably be its own forum.

I think it bodes ill for a movement that identifies itself with the bottom 99% to be afraid of participatory democracy. I know there's a wide range of views here and I think it's good but it seems to me that democracy is a very core fundamental principle. On what legitimacy does anything less rest? I don't think we should look to the founding fathers of the 18th century for much guidance today in the 21st. The founding fathers feared democracy for obvious reasons: they wanted to protect their property from the vast majority which had none. A very significant part of our current problems with oligarchic government can be directly attributed to the undemocratic constitution they created.

Also, commodity money is demonstrably a horrible idea for the vast majority. It locks in a monetary regime in which drastic austerity measures will be routine occurrences, all for no reason other than to hold the value of the dollar in parity with gold, the ultimate in barbaric relics.

test

It sounds like we are coming to a moment where we can either agree that a tactic either is or isn't the basis of a movement. Encampment is a symbolic protest and as such its a tactic in a larger strategy of more or less overthrowing the powers of the wealthiest 1% of this country. If we attempt to make this tactic the central focus of our group's efforts, we'll lose on every level. In particular if we do so needlessly.

We are talking about Boulder here. Not Denver. Boulder's City Council and government are liberal by any standards. I suspect many if not most of our city leaders are in sympathy with many of the goals of us "Occupiers". However, the encampment concept will force folks who could be our natural allies to take a law and order position and may close the doors to better communications.

Can we please, like today, ask three folks to start a "formal" dialogue with the City as soon as possible regarding an "encampment". We should have this dialogue at a later date, maybe ask a city delegation to meet with us at our upcoming G.A. But we have to do something. NOW.

If we do nothing, if we just keep getting citations and continue to be confrontational then we'll lose both the city's good will, the opportunity to capitalize on it, and any hope of achieving permanence. Its unrealistic to think that we can just demand to create a sustainable "community" on the Boulder County Courthouse lawn.

Even if we are right in our principles, we'll lose the larger war here because we can't get our tactics together. The Occupation movement is not winning because the vast amount of Americans believe they should be able to set up tents where ever they want. We are winning because the vast amount of America believes Wall Street and the Federal Government are colluding to violate our larger "social compact" as spelled out in our Constitution. We gather because of economic injustices. Since most of us in the group were probably not upset prior to September about not being able to camp on the courthouse lawn, I suspect this is not a major grievance. Therefore, as a tactic, we can work to amend it to our larger desire.

We can, however, set up a symbolic Occupation at the Courthouse and continue to have G.A.'s there...until we set up a more sustainable community somewhere else. While the encampment is a very valuable tactic, it might be better as a symbol and a place to foster conversation with those unfamiliar with our larger goals. We could then direct these potential supporters to tour our living Wall Street Bypass Community somewhere else.

Just a few thoughts...

Lee

I have been waiting to chime in on this subject and have this to say...

It was illegal for a black person to ride in the front of the bus, but this didn't stop Rosa Parks! But where would we be now if she had not taken that defiant ride.

How can we call ourselves Occupy Boulder when we are still debating whether or not if Occupying is 'politically correct' or not. Why are our so called 'cool local leaders' not standing by us in solidarity. Seems to me they are more worried about their political careers than making a true stand.
The occupy movement is a symbol that change must occur, that we no longer stand up for the status quot. It's about standing in Solidarity with all the other occupations. Where would this movement be if they only occupied NYC from 9-5 (m-f). Fact is I am just as unemployed here in Boulder County as they are in the rest of the country, and I'm sorry but I just don't see this 'progressive community' making great strides in creating jobs. And don't get me started on the monetary system we are ALL slaves to.
These are just my thoughts..............

I dig it, like I've said, but "model community" is another movement, this movement is about economic justice and corporate control of democracy...

"sustainable living" is not something that campers will demonstrate as they eat burritos from Illegal Pete's and poop in the city toilet and wear clothes from china. While discussing how corporations and their policies are unsustainable (unending "growth", carbon fuels) encampments are not "sustainable" without money and farms - it's a good goal but not the focus

"the founding members" smacks of elitism and doesn't allow the founding members to leave

This is a setup for failure:
"We will rely on each other and work with local organizations to handle our community's needs such as food, shelter, health, and sanitation. By providing for the well being of every member of our community and embracing true free market and democratic principles, we will prove to the world that a sustainable, socially responsible, and truly free society is possible in the modern age."

That is not what I'm in this for. That is what the government is for. We will prove to the world that we ignore the useful working structures and bite off more than we can chew.

IMO Occupying a public space is paramount to Occupy Boulder. If we are not or at least not trying to do that then there is no point to Occupy Boulder IMO. I sense a lot of fear. We need to show courage like Rosa Parks, John Brown and Malcolm X, not cower behind a security detail like Michael Moore.

Is it fear to want to at least 'try' to gain the support of the community and the city and county government in beginning a 24/7 occupation? Or is it noble and perhaps from an overview standpoint very wise?

Will people look at us as fools for rushing in without a plan without trying to galvanize support first? My impression of Boulder is yes they will see us as fools and not be very sympathetic to arrests.

Would we actually raise the question and support if we try and fail to get as much support as we would like but we do our best to accommodate the community and begin a planned occupation anyway... yes I think there would be more support at least question in people's mind that 'we at least have a 'right' to do it'... and we tried...

The uniqueness of Boulder demonstrates itself in many different ways. They might really give us a lot of leeway and support if we make a serious and intelligent case for why they should. Or they might dismiss us a silly for being rash and unwise in our actions. If we demonstrate wisdom and intelligence we will have their respect even if they disagree with us.

What you see as fear looks like wisdom to me.

When we met last Thursday and I spoke about wanting to do this in a way that we tried to get the support of the community. That we try to plan this in a way that gives us the greatest chance to have a long term successful occupation... there was support for that. When it was expressed passionately that waiting until March was unacceptable... there was support for being willing to move things along more quickly. Then individuals decided to begin an occupation anyway.

The way I see it, we are exercising our rights. People can be on board or not. The only reason I got back into Occupy Boulder was because the encampment began. We are not Occupy Boulder if we are not Occupying. Occupying public space is what separates the wheat from the chaff. I'm not saying we should not try to work with the city. Just saying we don't need their permission to Occupy. If someone wants to Occupy I will support them. If other people do not want to support them that is their business. I just ask that those who don't not want to occupy stay out of our way.

(I wish others would post their thoughts in this forum! I only see a few giving input, yet I hear a lot of verbal thoughts about this.)

Hello Andrew! Please allow me to spar with you a bit.

"this movement is about economic justice and corporate control of democracy..." What group embodies this fact more than the homeless who would be a significant part of an encampment. The homeless could symbolize the problem and their hidden energy and creativity could symbolize the solution.

"sustainable living" - a model campers/homeless community could demonstrate the following:
1. Use of clothes made of recycled material and second-hand clothing
2. Eat from Food Not Bombs and other similarly "green" charities
3. The "poop" could be turned into fuel. I have the technology to do that. The City's blessing would of course be necessary and it could be a model of its own.
4. The money used in the camp could be the Terra (something other than the dollar) as Bernard Lietaer recommended on Saturday.
5. There could be collaboration with LOCAL farms so that the food doesn't have a large carbon footprint as a result of transporting it from Mexico and California.
6. The Occupy form of government could be utilized within the camp.

Would we really be "ignoring useful working structures?" Couldn't it be a collaborative effort that benefits all involved? There are four cities around the US that have encampments that welcome the homeless. As you already know, most encampments around the country are in cooperation with the host city. We are trying to re-orient the system so that WE are the government. Such an encampment could be an idealistic microcosm of how such a self government could work.

Biting off more than we can chew? Yes, it will be a challenge. Some in Occupy Boulder are already researching the challenges and then offering solutions. One suggestion was that we tap into the immense resources of the University. Such an encampment will have many complex issues and there are students just a few miles away trying to learn about those complex issues.

Andrew, are your concerns challenges or opportunities??

Your friend,
Cliff

I think Cliff made some great points. We are working towards creating a sustainable community. This is just the beginning. Just because we are not there yet does not mean we are on the wrong track.

Chris

Just want to note that in my mind it was not a question of wanting to vs not wanting to but rather a question of how and when. My preference would have been finding a point where planning and taking action could meet and being able to find consensus.

Lauren, I am trying to do 1000 things at once with family in town and all while still staying involved in occupy. If I have misunderstood you in my haste I apologize. :)