From someone at OWS.

Also talked about at HotAir.

The problems with the childishness are legion, and should have been known by those involved; there is no magic to soothe the wounds and make everything ok.

Ms. Holmes also stated at the teach-in that five people in the Finance WG have access to the $500,000 raised by Friends of Liberty Plaza. When Suresh Fernando, the man taking notes, asked who these people are, the leaders of the Structure WG nervously laughed and said that it was hard to keep track of the “constantly fluctuating” heads of the Finance WG. Mr. Fernando made at least four increasingly explicit requests for the names. Each request was turned down by the giggling, equivocating leaders.

Money and power, are mixed to the detriment of the people, if only this was just their money, and not the fruit of other’s labors.

They said that they too were unhappy with the Finance WG’s monopoly over OWS’s funds, which is why they wanted to create the Spokes Council. What upset them more, however, was the inefficient and fickle General Assembly.

Heh, this is sad, do we really have to watch this over-run movie yet again?

When my turn came to speak, I brought up the plans of “the leaders of the allegedly leaderless movement” to commandeer the half-million dollars sent to the General Assembly for their new, exclusive, undemocratic, representational organization. Before I could finish, the facilitators and other members of the OWS inner circle started shouting over me. Amidst the confusion, the human mic stopped projecting what I, or anybody was saying. Because silence was what they were after, the leaders won.

Congratulations on proving Rousseau’s declaration that all governments are doomed to fail because of the Particular Will of the government trying to destroy the General Will of the people.

Word to the wise though, Rousseau warned that the people are only ‘required’ to obey a government in violation of its people’s rights so long as the government forces them to. As soon as they have an option they may exercise it; all they have to do in this case is walk away!

And really, this whole consensus thing is a laugh. A show of hands does not prove consensus. You can only do that in very small communities, and for effectiveness in those, people are traditionally separated, based on their votes, and counted. Without a ballot or voting mechanism there is no way to actually know a vote in absolute fact. How can it be proven, in the short time allocated to votes, that majorities actually occurred? How, beyond doubt, is it known that the leader didn’t simply declare what he/she wanted, and abuse the power of social proof to silence people from doubting the result? (Since that’s apparently happening…yeah…)

The answer is of course clear, this is a shield of democratic claims to hide the truth of an autocracy; one that has deliberately built the rules to allow it to protect itself from a popular vote. The 90% standard is exceptional for that, the people are denied the ability to redress their grievances with the ‘Working Groups’ because the ‘Working Groups’ will always be able to leverage enough votes to stop anything, and I mean anything.

There is no set recall of representatives, no required re-vote; in short, no real people power. That’s something the American republic has done well, the frequent replacements from elections are good at slowing the Particular Will, which is a good step. Investing an aristocracy like the OWS seem to want to do is a very backwards step.

Since I’ve mentioned Rousseau’s Wills I think it valuable to point out: If they were representative of the people at large, if they were representative of the General Will, there would be no need to demonstrate; a true decision by the General Will is un-challengable in an electoral system as America has. They are, in fact, a Particular Will, not to be confused with the General; they are an exclusionary Will with gains intended for themselves, which, admittedly, can often, in the heat of self gratification, be confused with the General Will by an individual who looks to benefit from the Particular.