[KnightofPhoenix]

So I wrote this article On Citizenry and Change, while relating my on-going experience with Greenpeace. I propose that true and effective change needs above all a sense of civic responsibility and dynamism on the part of citizens.

Since you guys were awesome and very civil in the Prostitution Legalization thread, I thought it might be cool and inspiring to discuss civic activism. Do you believe as I do that a well organized citizenry can accomplish wonders? Or do you attribute more importance to official institutions, governments and leaders? Do you believe that we as citizens are responsible for the state of our polity? And if so, how can we be true to that responsibility?

Also we can discuss environmental issues and the impact citizens can have if you wish, though I only used it s an example to present a broader idea.

Finally, please refrain from being political in the sense of party or ideological partisanship. I think this issue transcends party / ideological affiliations.

[Bloth]

Working on the rails I see a damn lot of fly tipping, and what kind of appals me is just how wasteful we are as a species. There's got to be more we can do to re-use the stuff we create, but in first world countries that seems to be frowned upon as unfashionable and dirty. Even the poorer classes here in Britain think they'd be shamed by curbing their spending or wearing hand me downs, whereas most of the world would kill to be in that position.

It probably sticks out for me a little more as I grew up in a quite austere period (for England) travelled a lot as a lad and read a lot of history, but here our people seem to be for want of a better word, spoiled. Then again is this the result of millenia of trying to improve our lot and standing, of struggling for full bellies and a better life for our children. Is selfishness and greed a trait honed by our genetic make up?

Good question anyway. I try to limit myself and make do even though i'm financially secure and capable of far more outrageous spending, it would just feel wrong to flaunt my wealth or purchase fripperies that I really don't need. I balk at even paying extra for a 3d movie or god forbid the overpriced foyer food.

[gab961111]

I think that its good to do activism because the world is in the state it is because of people with power. The official institutions are not able to do everything on their own. Its the same for the population. Civic activism is very important because it can change the mind of people and its very necessary for environmental causes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Blothulfur said:

Good question anyway. I try to limit myself and make do even though i'm financially secure and capable of far more outrageous spending, it would just feel wrong to flaunt my wealth or purchase fripperies that I really don't need. I balk at even paying extra for a 3d movie or god forbid the overpriced foyer food. ›››

That is a very important thing you bring up. Waste. It's true we are extremely wasteful.

And while there is a lot of talk on renewable energies and such, which I think is crucial, there is not as much attention (at least that's my impression) on energy efficiency. There's a lot of waste going on, due to poor or aging infrastructure but also people being wasteful. Spoiled as you say.

I can buy a car for myself if I wish for instance, but since I don't really *need* it, I just walk or use public transportation which is pretty decent in Montreal. But a lot of people buy cars to show off or because they supposedly enjoy driving that much.

And here's where an active and responsible citizenry can come into play. Governments can work on media, education, public awareness, but it won't be enough. More often then not we expect the government to do everything, thinking our vote every 4 years or whatever is enough, and when they quite understandably fail to do so, we start to complain. Well no, governments can't do everything on their own. A partnership between government and citizenry is needed (I am not fond of the statement "governments should fear its people." Ideally, neither should fear the other).

[Bloth]

Depressing that one of the worst crimes you can commit against the enviroment is by having children, adding more little consumers to the mix. Then again the earth will most likely survive in whatever way, it's just that we won't.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Blothulfur said:

Depressing that one of the worst crimes you can commit against the enviroment is by having children, adding more little consumers to the mix. Then again the earth will most likely survive in whatever way, it's just that we won't. ›››

George Carlin

[Pangaea]

The way I look at it, (civic) activism has done an incredible amount, and gotten us to where we are today (and I don't mean that in a negative sense). Just think back to the civil rights movement, which again spurred on the women's rights movement and the environmental movement. 50 years ago, basically none of this existed. Now it's common and taken for granted. Activism did that. Much the same with the anti-war movement. A lot of that started with, or came out of, the civil rights movement in the USA. Now, it's a factor politicians will have to take into account before going to war, which is why we get the outrageously deceitful propaganda campaigns before the first bombs fall, or the first soldiers step onto foreign land (a good example in hot action right now, but I won't go into that).

Governments and various institutions can do a lot when it comes to pushing these issues forward, but they usually don't. Taking on financial and corporate interests is mighty risky for politicians, because in the Western world in particular, they depend on those sources of funding to get elected. Therefore there must be quite considerable public interest and pressure on for example environmental issues for politicians to give a fuck about it.

They way I look at it, having worked in organisations like this (on more financial issues rather than environmental), it goes something like this.

Public interest and pressure on issues > Politicians have to take notice > Meetings are had (lobbying, though that's a naughty word most places these days) > Policies change > Actual change happens

It's basically a bottom-up approach, but more complex than that because there are politicians and "higher-ups" who care about this too, but who don't want to take the risk on 'caring' publicly unless there is a certain interest in a given topic.

The bottom line is that unless the public at large care about the icecaps melting and the Earth's lungs being cut down, then neither will politicians. And "care" has to be more than a private thought. That is why civic organisations and (the often erroneously named) NGOs are very important, because they can become a centre for such 'care', and eventually pressure or entice politicians to give a fuck.



This is going a little offtopic, but it's related as well. It's a great sadness of mine that the democratic system has kind of been hijacked by financial and corporate interests. Back in the day it used to be "No Taxation without Representation", and now we have plenty of taxation but the representation is falling away. There are people getting elected, sure, but do they represent the common man? Not often, and on fewer and fewer issues. It's a systemic issue, which unfortunately makes it even more difficult to change than if just some politicians were corrupt. Incidentally, this is why it's so important with civic organisations and public activism, as that can help keep the politicians in check.

[Costin Moroianu]

I find the article and the ideas within for the most part agreeable, but there is one that I disagree with and that is equality. People are not equal to each other, they are different and it's those differences that we should embrace to make ourselves stronger.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin Moroianu said:

I find the article and the ideas within for the most part agreeable, but there is one that I disagree with and that is equality. People are not equal to each other, they are different and it's those differences that we should embrace to make ourselves stronger. ›››

Equality =/= being identical.
What I meant is people being treated as equals by the law and social norms, while celebrating differences.

@ Pangaea
Excellent post, I'll comment on it in a bit
Thanks for that!

[Vinterberg]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Do you believe as I do that a well organized citizenry can accomplish wonders? Or do you attribute more importance to official institutions, governments and leaders? Do you believe that we as citizens are responsible for the state of our polity? And if so, how can we be true to that responsibility? ›››

No I don't believe anymore in organized citizenry..

I reached a point this summer where I was fed up with the way the world/system works, and so I searched for organisations which tries to deal with this: Zeitgeist, We Are Change etc.
They never replied to any of my many emails, and they do nothing tangible in terms of reaching their goals - other than spreading information and demonstrations.
There's even been a split between Zeitgeist and Venus Project, they can't even reach common ground o.O

I don't think we as citizens are responsible for the way things are, because we don't have much to say when it comes to a substantial change. Politics are tailored to keep the system intact, it's gonna be a cold day in hell before a party which seeks to disassemble the current global system and replace it with something new will be accepted into any political reign: it's outright illegal in many countries to go against the way things work in this age.
We as citizens often thinks voting makes a difference, when in reality it's just a cycle of "a few years of red, then some blue, red again!" - and more and more people thinks that no party can represent them in a meaningful way. So they don't vote, and what have we taught ourselves and each other? - "If you don't vote, you haven't got any right to state your opinion in this debate!", which in my book is totally wrong, and hinders progress to a certain degree. Why is a person who has decided not to vote any less important than a typical voter (who is often drawn in by the propaganda, and in my eyes doesn't see things in a bigger perspective, but only from what the system has taught him/her)?

There was a time where I thought the power was with the people, and that we can make changes happen.
Not anymore.
Yes we do have the ultimate power, in that if we all decided not to bend over for the government - they can't do much about it.
But we are so taken in by the things we recieve from the medias that whenever somebody tries to educate people and make them see how it all works if you observe it with a "clean mind", they're ridiculed, called traitors of the government and/or get stamped with a "mental illness" ("who in their right mind would object to the way we live? - he must be sick!").
Because we act in this way towards our fellow citizens, we effectively lock ourselves into the current state of the world.
The few people who wants to stand up against this crazy system is more or less powerless, because that's the way the laws has been written.
This world desperately needs a huge wake-up call, but before it happens on a large-enough scale - we're stuck with this muck.
No use fighting when the general idea is:

Fight all you want, but the majority of the world will be against you, trying to make you understand that it's pointless and doomed from the start.
But if you DO succeed in fighting the global power-elite and the common people - we will salute you and write books about you for eons!

Something's terribly wrong in this picture.
We as common people are our own worst enemies - the governments just sits back and watches us keep it all in working order, while stuffing themselves with power, control and wealth.

Just the fact that an event like the Bilderberg group can be held every year sincer 1946 (as far as I recall) without anybody knowing about it until recently, and after it became common knowledge (in 1997 I think), nobody feels it's important enough to protest against: "they're probably just debating stuff that will benefit us!" - YEAH RIGHT, count the number of governments in the past who has been in the favor of the common people and wasn't about centralizing the power, and you get my point.
Why does people think it's more important to work hard and save up for when they retire, instead of fighting secret meetings with the global elite? - Because that's exactly what the system is suited for: keeping us busy every single day, all day long to buy all the things we have been taught to place value in, and we value our spare time greatly because of this - not much room for freedom of thought and possible related action.
It often angers me that people can't see that they've been locked into a strict way of living, and just because that way of living is comfortable, all is good. No it isn't! You can't say "well this is 'good enough', no point in fighting anymore", that only leads to more negative shifts in power and less freedom.

Politics in general is an illusion, to give us a sense of power by numbers. More than one president has attended Bilderberg meetings, only to become elected the next election-year. Makes me think.
There's many problems in this world, and the solution is not in politics (because of the self-protecting system). Where the solution lies I don't know, and no group has shown any interest in searching for it, other than vague goals they try to reach through legal channels (which is doomed to fail).

BTW: Into The Wild is a great movie about a young man who decided to leave this sh**ty society and try to reach a higher degree of personal freedom, in a way that made sense to him. Something I dream of, and has set as a life-long goal (with proper preparation etc.).

[dragonbird]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Do you believe as I do that a well organized citizenry can accomplish wonders?

Sometimes. I guess it depends on whether or not the thing that the citizenry are acting on is something that meets with your* approval. If it does, (for example, your Greenpeace experience), then we can rightly applaud the ability of The People to accomplish wonders. But what about cases where citizen activism is intended to promote something you* DON'T approve of? In the interest of keeping the thread non-political, I'm going to avoid specific examples, but there are plenty of cases where protests are intended to persuade the authorities to censor, to take away human rights, to crush a minority. The People are not always benign.

Quote

Or do you attribute more importance to official institutions, governments and leaders? Do you believe that we as citizens are responsible for the state of our polity? And if so, how can we be true to that responsibility?

I don't believe in global conspiracies, but I do believe that those in power act primarily out of self-interest, and not for the common good. How much the citizens are responsible for permitting this depends on the regime - if The People could do something about it without resorting to violence or risking their lives/freedom, then yes, I consider them at least partially responsible.

I don't have solutions, except for pushing on the importance of knowledge. The first step to change is always the realisation that the emperor has no clothes.


*a generic "your", not you personally.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Pangaea said:

This is going a little offtopic, but it's related as well. It's a great sadness of mine that the democratic system has kind of been hijacked by financial and corporate interests. Back in the day it used to be "No Taxation without Representation", and now we have plenty of taxation but the representation is falling away. There are people getting elected, sure, but do they represent the common man? Not often, and on fewer and fewer issues. It's a systemic issue, which unfortunately makes it even more difficult to change than if just some politicians were corrupt. Incidentally, this is why it's so important with civic organisations and public activism, as that can help keep the politicians in check. ›››

Yea that's exactly how I see it. I believe the ultimate check and motivation to politicians is a well-informed citizenry. Of course laws and institutions can and should also check citizens from devolving into mob rule, that's as important.
Politicians are not going to stop playing favorites with corporations, unless they see citizens being outraged and *active* in not only bringing awareness, but also proposing alternatives.

Vinterberg said:

Something's terribly wrong in this picture.
We as common people are our own worst enemies - the governments just sits back and watches us keep it all in working order, while stuffing themselves with power, control and wealth.
›››

Yes I agree, and I believe civic activism could be a remedy. The only thing we can hope to do is lead by example, and people to respond if you know how to push the right buttons. The effective organisms are very pragmatic. I'll be honest, I still had in the back of my head this stereotypical idea that I'll be dealing with hippies in Greenpeace. But they are all very rational and pragmatic in their arguments, otherwise I wouldn't have felt at home cause sentimentality generally gets on my nerves.

I agree that voting every 4 years is not being a responsible citizen. For me it's an everyday thing, from something as seemingly trivial as shutting the lights when you don't need them and recycling, to participating in NGOs. It's a state of mind first and foremost, imo, a sense of responsibility.

Ironically enough, I had the same cynical outlook than you, but now I find myself very optimistic about the potential that exists. I am not unaware of the immense obstacles that need to be dealt with, both outside and inside society. But I believe it's possible, but then again I'm a humanist.

dragonbird said:

Sometimes. I guess it depends on whether or not the thing that the citizenry are acting on is something that meets with your* approval. If it does, (for example, your Greenpeace experience), then we can rightly applaud the ability of The People to accomplish wonders. But what about cases where citizen activism is intended to promote something you* DON'T approve of? In the interest of keeping the thread non-political, I'm going to avoid specific examples, but there are plenty of cases where protests are intended to persuade the authorities to censor, to take away human rights, to crush a minority. The People are not always benign. ›››

Oh absolutely, that's why in another article I stressed that a democracy can be illiberal and oppressive and that this is not a good path to take at all. Liberalism (in its classical philosophical definition), imo, is key. That's why I emphasized on political and cultural freedoms and citizens being treated as equals.

That said, if people have an opinion they want to promote that I consider disagreeable, I don't think they should be forbidden to express it, though naturally they still need to abide by laws against hate speech and promoting violence.

Here, I think a combination of laws, strong institutions, and an entrenched sanctity of equal human rights and liberalism, in addition to civic counter-activism can check it and make sure it doesn't devolve into mob rule and illiberal pressure.

[Veleda]

Gods save us from well-meaning activists. No offense to KoP.

I once read that if you try to love the whole world, you end up hating individuals. That strikes me as true. Those who try to institute sweeping changes, even if well meaning and avoiding power trip tendencies, end up doing harm as well. Then you'll have other activists who'll come along and agitate to clean up the mess that the previous ones made. And on it goes. They are also prone to extremism, because they have to justify their own existence and their fundraising. Environmental activism, in particular, is also tinged with a misanthropy that I find very distasteful.

Here in California, a haven of environmental activism, we certainly get to see examples of this up close. They make laws to block cutting of underbrush, but are they around when the wildfires hit? In the Mojave, environmentalists blocked a project of underground turbines that could produce a lot of energy using mostly solar power. We can't produce enough of our own energy because a percentage of it has to be "green," but all this means is that California has to buy "black" energy from other states, at inflated prices. Excessive regulation means that farming is not feasible except on an industrial scale. My in-laws see this since they own some ranch property, and the expense and hoops they have to jump through to make improvements on the land or get the water they need to produce crops is absolutely insane. So what happens- more activism against big ag. The activists thus end up creating a boutique lifestyle that neither helps the environment in real terms, nor certainly helps people live better lives. But I guess they have stuff to put on their fundraising letters...

You mention shale oil production, one of the current trendy things to hate. My home area back east, a remote forest region which had around 18% unemployment even during the "good" years, has finally seen some jobs lately because of a shale oil project nearby. I love the unspoiled forest as much as anyone, but what good is it if no one sees it except the big paper companies buying up the cheap land? The activists in the cities don't care.

Sorry to inject some cynicism, but these are realities.

[slimgrin]

As usual Veleda tells it like it is.

[Vinterberg]

I would like to point out that just because Al Gore and almost every government in this world hypes the CO2 "danger" doesn't make it a real threat - the way I see it, the CO2 scare-campaign only served one purpose: to make us all desperate for saving the environment, and thus paving the way for additional taxes and so on.. But the very same governments does nothing at all to make us all drive in better and less polluting cars - we could by now, but no, we still drive gasoline-driven cars as a whole. So we end up paying more money to our governments in the name of the environment, only ending up with countries buying energy from each other to stay under the pollution limits.

I don't trust any "official" information (medias, politicians etc) regarding subjects that always ends up shifting more money in the wrong direction.
But the environmentalists buys any information from these official sources when they're told something that fits their point of view, and goes into battle against the same sources for "better times" - it's all a game, and the elite plays it very well, while the environmentalists gets a false sense of "doing good". They want to do some good? Then recoqnize the root of the problem, instead of searching for patches in a quest for better times. Doesn't do much to fight individual problems around the world, when the root of many of these problems is in our global system. Why don't we tear it down and build something new, instead of patching it again and again through hundreds of years, as if it will suddenly work in terms of "making sense" one day?
Energy is wasted battling oil tankers, whalers etc. - they're all just products of the underlying problem.

[dragonbird]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Yea that's exactly how I see it. I believe the ultimate check and motivation to politicians is a well-informed citizenry. Of course laws and institutions can and should also check citizens from devolving into mob rule, that's as important.
Politicians are not going to stop playing favorites with corporations, unless they see citizens being outraged and *active* in not only bringing awareness, but also proposing alternatives.

Agreed, but the issue then becomes "What outrages the citizens?" Citizens can be influenced, and that influence can (and frequently does) come from partisan sources with their own agendas. So how is the government supposed to decide which citizen outrage to ignore, and which should define their policies? Wrong doesn't become right just because a lot of people are asking for it.

I've said it repeatedly in the past, but will repeat it here. There is no such thing as a Human Right Not To Be Offended. Even if something outrages the majority of the population of a particular society, it still doesn't necessarily mean that action should be taken to stop the outrage.

Quote

Yes I agree, and I believe civic activism could be a remedy. The only thing we can hope to do is lead by example, and people to respond if you know how to push the right buttons. The effective organisms are very pragmatic. I'll be honest, I still had in the back of my head this stereotypical idea that I'll be dealing with hippies in Greenpeace. But they are all very rational and pragmatic in their arguments, otherwise I wouldn't have felt at home cause sentimentality generally gets on my nerves.

I agree that voting every 4 years is not being a responsible citizen. For me it's an everyday thing, from something as seemingly trivial as shutting the lights when you don't need them and recycling, to participating in NGOs. It's a state of mind first and foremost, imo, a sense of responsibility.

I'd agree with most of this. In the end, we define our own morality, and should follow it by our own actions. If we can persuade others to agree with our own beliefs, fine, but nobody can be forced to do so.

Quote

Oh absolutely, that's why in another article I stressed that a democracy can be illiberal and oppressive and that this is not a good path to take at all. Liberalism (in its classical philosophical definition), imo, is key. That's why I emphasized on political and cultural freedoms and citizens being treated as equals.

That said, if people have an opinion they want to promote that I consider disagreeable, I don't think they should be forbidden to express it, though naturally they still need to abide by laws against hate speech and promoting violence.

Here, I think a combination of laws, strong institutions, and an entrenched sanctity of equal human rights and liberalism, in addition to civic counter-activism can check it and make sure it doesn't devolve into mob rule and illiberal pressure.

I agree with this, but would again like to add the availability of information, and the spreading of knowledge to that list. That means fighting against cover-ups, regardless of who is doing it, supporting whistleblowers, countering spin, endorsing media that reports honestly and NOT supporting biased media (even that media that mirrors your own beliefs).

[KnightofPhoenix]

Veleda said:

Those who try to institute sweeping changes, even if well meaning and avoiding power trip tendencies, end up doing harm as well. Then you'll have other activists who'll come along and agitate to clean up the mess that the previous ones made. And on it goes.

And that's fine and part of the beauty of the imperfect human condition. Advocating inaction, defeatism, or indifference is not an answer or a viable alternative.

Quote

You mention shale oil production, one of the current trendy things to hate. My home area back east, a remote forest region which had around 18% unemployment even during the "good" years, has finally seen some jobs lately because of a shale oil project nearby. I love the unspoiled forest as much as anyone, but what good is it if no one sees it except the big paper companies buying up the cheap land? The activists in the cities don't care.

Sorry to inject some cynicism, but these are realities.

And here's the biggest myth and the most mentioned of false dichotomies perpetuated by corporations to continue their short sighted illogical and irrational policies. Economy vs environment.

As if the renewable energy sector can't create jobs. It does, and a lot of studies show that job creation out of fossil fuels is in fact pretty minimal. I know in Canada, official reports show that job creation is in fact pretty paltry compared to the billions of dollars thrown on these projects, the favoritism they are getting and the destruction they are inflicting.

I am not a spiritual man at all, I'm very materialistic in a philosophical sense. My main concern is not forests and grass, though it is important. My primary concern is economics. And a cost-inefficient system that destroys more than it produces, with dwindling resources that won't last long, strikes me as an illogical, short-sighted idiocy, especially when an alternative exists that can create jobs, stimulate the economy, be more cost-efficient and be *sustainable*.

There is no self-respecting economist and environmentalist who disagrees. Only people in the oil and gas giants' payroll.

These are not realities. But false dichotomies and illusions spawned to preserve a narrow-minded, short-sighted, irrational exploitative system.

EDIT: as for extremism. That's a natural possibility to any endeavor. Hence you cultivate an environment that fosters better education and access to information, with the media being scrutinized more. The problem you mention in the US is but a symptom of a much larger problem, and one that many other countries face on a much smaller scale.

[KnightofPhoenix]

dragonbird said:

I agree with this, but would again like to add the availability of information, and the spreading of knowledge to that list. That means fighting against cover-ups, regardless of who is doing it, supporting whistleblowers, countering spin, endorsing media that reports honestly and NOT supporting biased media (even that media that mirrors your own beliefs). ›››

Yea I 100% agree with that. I'd also advocate citizen journalism. Can these be perverted and exploited? Sure, everything can meet that fate and there is no solution that doesn't create its own set of problems. So what is needed is a constantly vigilante and active citizenry, that as you said is well-informed and I believe that increasing the number of media sources can do that as opposed to a monopoly or oligopoly.

It's not an easy thing and there is no one solution. It's a constant struggle, and I believe it will need leadership by example.

[slimgrin]

There's nothing minimal about the job creation in the Balkan oil field. I'm almost smack dab in the middle of it. Alternative energy is a long term goal.

[KnightofPhoenix]

slimgrin said:

There's nothing minimal about the job creation in the Balkan oil field. I'm almost smack dab in the middle of it. Alternative energy is a long term goal. ›››

Scotland is transitioning to a fully renewable energy economy by 2020. It's not as long term as you'd think and that's another illusion they keep telling us. "We'll invest in green energy later."

After what? We cause horrific damage to the environment that would cause billions to repair if it's even possible?
If their policy is to gradually reduce their investment in fossil fuels while increasing their research and implementation of green energies, then I'd find that agreeable. Obviously I am not for completely dismantling the entire energy sector overnight. But the reality is that they keep throwing billions upon billions on fossil fuels, while doing almost nothing for the renewable energy sector or even decreasing investments, while also weakening regulations and oversight. That's the reality.

They have no intention to start transitioning now. They are interested in completely stripping the country of fossil fuels, getting billions in their pockets and then leave us to deal with their mess.

This is simply not sound economics. It's short-sighted.