A Plea For Those Who Are Really Interested

[RU Sirius]

Now that this proposal is out there, I'm sure that one of the first things that will happen will be a rush of people who say yeah but... and have a better idea, or have major quibbles that will turn into huge roadblocks. And they will all be different ideas and different roadblocks.

That's all fine. It's QuestionAuthority after all, and it can't be helped or stopped. But as anybody who has ever tried to launch political activity or organization or even where to go to lunch among a large group of people, if that's ALL there is, the energy behind this thing that may have attracted you here in the first place will dissipate.

So what I'm looking for with this post is people who can agree to let this document be the starting point for something (amendable later) and particuarly people who have experiences, talents and resources that might contribute to making this the basis for an actual organization.

RU

[Yodhe]

To quote Timothy Leary,
"Our only defence against to the universe is laughter......."

By remaining humourous of ourselves and respectful of each other I think we can avoid this problem, and
by keeping open dialogue with each other, as in my experience differences often are a matter of semantics,
or faulty logic.
Also by acknowledging to ourselves and each other, our intentions and games we can find a way to include
everyone. "There is only on party, and you are all invited", lets learn to the lesson of the Golden Apple. :)

[Sam Feinson]

I guess what I can bring right now are questions. What's unique or special about QuestionAuthority? What does QA do that the ACLU, EFF and maybe NORML don't cover? What, as the suits would say, is our value added?

[RU Sirius]

Not to sound glib, but the answer that immediately comes to mind is YOU. Our plan is to encourage a high level of participation, engagement, creative input. I would also suggest that there will be a great emphasis on outreach and education that tries to contend with and get deep into the problem of authoritarianism, not just as a political systemic problem but as a cultural memetic problem.

Another question to ask might be -- why aren't the ACLU, EFF and NORML together in a broader coalitional organization since they are dealing with the same problems -- problems that could be best dealt with by a shift in perspective by as many people as possible, or by a cohesive organization that has a voice in the world, perhaps in the way that the "Family Research Council" has its voice in the world.

Another question to ask is what needs to be done that nobody else is doing? And then do it. We've already put together a complete timeline of harms to civil liberties in the US so far in this century. I was frankly appalled that this didn't exist in some organized way already. Now it does. It's up on the Wiki where it can be improved, added to, expanded etc. There's another proposal for action already here related to a "Fair Share of Abuse" blog. I'll have more action points before the week is out. What we need is people who will actually do something and members to add a sense of weight to our presence.

Besides all that, I thought I answered your question already in the original document. So, to repeat:
"Our goal is to create a broad-based coalition of non-authoritarian groups and individuals who may currently be working in relative isolation on single issues, for political organizations and candidates, or in relatively isolated ideological cohort groups. As a cohesive force, we can do more than just stem the tide one issue — or one court case — at a time. We can exercise political and cultural influence by uniting the vast numbers of Americans who believe that the country has taken a radical turn in an authoritarian direction."

4: QA FAQ

Q: What is the difference between QA and other organizations and candidates that fight for our rights?

A: First of all, our goal is to create a broad-based coalition of non-authoritarian groups and individuals who may currently be working in relative isolation on single issues, for political organizations and candidates, or in relatively isolated ideological cohort groups.

Also, in cases where civil liberty types of issues are involved, people tend to sit back and let them be fought out in the court. As a cohesive force, we can do more than just stem the tide one issue — or one court case — at a time. We can exercise political and cultural influence by uniting the vast numbers of Americans who believe that the country has taken a radical turn in an authoritarian direction.

[Gary F. Moraco]

http://longestwalk.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

[fraser]

i finally joined.

at first i thought shit this is what i tried to kick off when i was last over there and everyone was too cool to get moving, incl u, Rus.

but i've gotten there now. it had to start somewhere and, after deep thought, i can't actually think of anyone i'd rather follow than u, ken :) if YOU've finally got off your punk ass, then this thing might really go somewhere, and so am more than prepared to "let this document be the starting point, amendable later."

YO! let's really kikk this thing off! wot we need is a global cultural movement to bring in the Future before the Past finishes us off.

[RU Sirius]

Great to see you here, Fraser. I don't remember you proposing anything of this sort but I'm sure I would have been too cool to give up my ironic distance in the mid-90s when you were here in the US.

cheers!
RU

[fraser]

you'd have demanded a panel of french semioticians to oversee things!

IRONIC DISTANCE i luvvit! i'll follow u to the ends of the Earth now, my man. have u been "working on yourself" or izzit the General External Situation that's prodded u into finally putting yourself on the line?

and i REALLY can't think of anyone better placed to do it. me, i'd make a lousy leader i'd get 2 enthusiastic about one direction and blow the whole thing. so i'll stick to being a prophet. YOU might go a bit too slow for me sometimes but, now that you've accepted the need for ACTION (2 b defined as we go along), we shall at least be moving in the right direction.

also your courage is not in question, nor i think is your ego-less commitment. which, of course, is what holds the other orgs working for change from gathering under one banner AS IS REQUIRED.

[Spanky]

Glad to be here. I like the presence of QA, and the proposal. It has redundancies with others , but that should only reinforce the cause. Good luck on yor launch!

Just remember to wash down your fish oil pill with your green tea.

[Michael]

Redundancy is important for a healthy ecology.

[Gary F. Moraco]

Is that how you got that lovely complexion?

[Steve T]

I am really interested. But I also have have "major quibbles that will turn into huge roadblocks". Actually just one that's already somewhat of a roadblock. It's not that the document explicitly endorses something I can't live with, and I'm ok with my "thing" being left out, but it implies a secondary goal that IMHO is a huge mistake.

Because I agree that debate on this could suck much of the life, momentum and energy out of it at a crucial stage, if not done carefully, I'm being intentionally vague.

It's the kind of thing that I've spent a lot of conversations insisting on; I couldn't honestly let it go.

What if rather than debating the proposal on individual merits, an analysis could be made? For instance: breaking up the ideas and issues they could be compared to statements made by progressive groups who are in the forefront of action, and seeing whether there are any secondary isssues (in your opinion) that might run at odds with their principles. That would keep from accidentally alienating people who might otherwise align with this, if it isn't something that you feel particularly strongly about.

I respect your efforts, and think you deserve some degree of deference here, but the reason I'm not addressing this specifically is because I don't want this post to spark a debate, it would be the wrong time for that.

Thanks for "listening" everybody. Sincerely,
Steve

[Michael]

I agree with this intentionally vague objection. Personally. I don't see a pledge as something that jibes with the concept of liberty -- I'll work with the group (as we all see) as far as I think the group is helping, and I'll stop when I think the group is not helping. I honestly don't see how anybody can truly do any differently.