Wow, Hyperboloid much? ...I assume you are straw-manning the argument for fun and not seriously because that would cause much more of a negative reaction then ever disrupting the subway for a day. (
It is not hyperbole to say that seriously disrupting the subway here is tantamount to disrupting every hospital and school. A weekday outage of any significant length would likely cause at least a handful of deaths. The decision to suspend service during the hurricane before was a huge and dangerous deal requiring massive coordination from the city ahead of time.
At least there, we're not straw-manning at all. The entire city would turn against them in a heartbeat if they actually fucked with the subway (regardless of their cause). You would see people cheering as they were arrested in the stations. The movement, at least within the city, would be dead.
... Doesn't that rant prove that fucking with the trains is a very effective method? Why would you stage a protest that can easily be ignored?
And still I ask: what is it that they don't want ignored?
I've read a lot of comments to the effect of "Good, the media are finally giving it the attention it deserves." Really? Because anyone who's read the news in the past two months has to have heard about this. Where exactly was coverage lacking?
If the goal is to get attention and establish a national dialogue, the attention's been there. The discussions around OWS are good - this is bringing up discussions we need to have.
But you don't have to block people's livelihoods to get that attention, and the people who need to be inconvenienced don't take the goddamn subway.
The problem now is that the Occupy movement seems to think that nobody else "gets" it. No, people get it just fine - it's just that without a clear motivation and arguable points, the Occupiers are just a nuisance that will be ignored.
New York City, while a giant democratic stronghold, produces some of the most corporate and bank friendly democratic politicians in the country. I can't imagine why. The occupy cause definitely isn't a "vote for democrats or republicans" it's a change the system. Get rid of corporate person-hood or corporate unlimited influence money. They do have a cause and it isn't solely a right or left (in american politics).
However, a large amount of New York state residents are completely disengaged from the political process anyhow, only maybe 32% of voters turned out in 2010, dead last in the nation compared to any other state.
New York City, while a giant democratic stronghold, produces some of the most corporate and bank friendly democratic politicians in the country.
And how can OWS change that? Not by pissing every single living person in the city itself off. You sorely underestimate the damage they would do to their cause here by actually disrupting the trains.
Get rid of corporate person-hood.
Straw man. "Getting rid" of that wouldn't work, as corporations need to be able to do things like sign contracts. It's a far more complex and nuanced issue than you give it credit for, and the "burn it down" angle is laughable in any practical sense.
But if they mess with the trains, they will have no friends in New York and a large hostile city stalking their political aspirations.
The problem now is that the Occupy movement seems to think that nobody else "gets" it. No, people get it just fine - it's just that without a clear motivation and arguable points, the Occupiers are just a nuisance that will be ignored.
I dunno, I'm a fan of the "Media Coverup" story myself. I mean, it's not like it's had fucking international headline news consistently for the past month, but because CNN is a few hours slower than twitter at putting news on the front page, everyone cries "Media blackout!"
Get rid of corporate person-hood or corporate unlimited influence money. They do have a cause and it isn't solely a right or left (in american politics).
So that's the aim of the Occupy movement? Not, say, raising the capital gains tax, or maybe creating more tax brackets for very high-income people?
And moreover, I still ask: how? Not one person has answered that question yet.
However, a large amount of New York state residents are completely disengaged from the political process anyhow, only maybe 32% of voters turned out in 2010, dead last in the nation compared to any other state.
I've read statistics saying that the Occupiers are, for the most part, 35 or younger. That age bracket has the lowest voter turnout of anyone.
I doubt the Occupiers think of themselves as a "Rock the Vote" movement, and if they did, the odds are that the majority of them wouldn't vote.
Pete, The protests have focused on social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government.
Pete, that's the point, these are the disenfranchised and generally poor and voiceless. How is a great question. Right now they feel they have no way to influence elections when compared to a mega-corp.
Pete, The protests have focused on social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government.
Yes, I know. I know what they're upset about. I know why they're protesting. So does everybody. I've already said I know and I agree.
What do they want to change in order to fix these problems? Because I guarantee I can walk into a group of occupiers and get different opinions about how things should actually be changed.
Pete, that's the point, these are the disenfranchised and generally poor and voiceless. How is a great question. Right now they feel they have no way to influence elections when compared to a mega-corp.
First of all, the Occupiers aren't all poor. In fact, many are doing "just fine," and part of the problem is that the vast majority of people will remain "just fine" their entire lives with no actual hope of mobility.
Right now they feel they have no way to influence elections when compared to a mega-corp.
If this is about elections, the movement still needs to tell candidates what they want them to do.
What specific platform would a hypothetical candidate need to have in order to garner the support of the Occupy movement?
EDIT: Disenfranchisement is common, but it's good. The Occupiers are pissed because things are bad and need to change. That's awesome, but the problem is that everyone else is now waiting for the next step - what do we actually change?
I've laid out my stakes - restructure the tax brackets to account for the ridiculously wealthy - let's graduate up to a 75% top tier income tax at, say, $100 million+ - and raise the capital gains tax to 20% (or maybe 22%) for long-term investments. Short-term investments are taxed just like income already, so with restructured tax brackets, the government will get the revenue it needs.
I would note that I am sympathetic with the cause but not a part of it myself. Way too much Communism is great or Anarchy is awesome (and crazy conspiracy stuff). My only argument in this thread on this particular topic, is disrupting transportation is an age old tactic that has been more or less effective in the past.
There are no specific demands, there's just one big vauge demand. Vast and real societal change. There's a huge pile of issues and they are almost all going the wrong way.
The one thing underlying the entire conflict is the clash between our distributed and cooperative culture versus the old world's centralized and competitive culture. If there were to be leadership with specific demands, it would be a surrender. An admittance that centralization and competition are the way society has to work. They're demonstrating, quite literally, that our Internet generation wants a fundamentally different societal structure, and we can make it work. We will not tolerate the tyranny of the old world for much longer.
I would note that I am sympathetic with the cause but not a part of it myself. Way too much Communism is great or Anarchy is awesome (and crazy conspiracy stuff). My only argument in this thread on this particular topic, is disrupting transportation is an age old tactic that has been more or less effective in the past.
It will not be effective now. If even someone like me won't tolerate it, imagine how less Internetty and cool New Yorkers would feel about it. Instead, they should just keep doing more things like this.
Pete, that's the point, these are the disenfranchised and generally poor and voiceless. How is a great question. Right now they feel they have no way to influence elections when compared to a mega-corp.
I'd like to see numbers on how few among OWS voted in their last local election.
Pete, that's the point, these are the disenfranchised and generally poor and voiceless. How is a great question. Right now they feel they have no way to influence elections when compared to a mega-corp.
I'd like to see numbers on how few among OWS voted in their last local election.
There was literally nothing to vote for on this past election day. In fact, I didn't even get the usual letter from the election board telling me where to vote because the ballot was empty.
Pete, that's the point, these are the disenfranchised and generally poor and voiceless. How is a great question. Right now they feel they have no way to influence elections when compared to a mega-corp.
I'd like to see numbers on how few among OWS voted in their last local election.
Well if they are anything like the rest of America about 17% or something around that number in the 2011 elections however since most of the OWS have been there since before November probably not that many because they were busy protesting so if you went back to 2009 I'm sure some of them were too young :-p
I would note that I am sympathetic with the cause but not a part of it myself. Way too much Communism is great or Anarchy is awesome (and crazy conspiracy stuff). My only argument in this thread on this particular topic, is disrupting transportation is an age old tactic that has been more or less effective in the past.
The problem with the Occupiers using the tactic is that it was effective for groups that had a clear message. Right now, this is a pure nuisance, and it's going to shoot the movement's credibility in the foot.
I know you're not part of the Occupiers, but you're not making any really solid argument s in support of the blocking transit tactic.
There is nothing new under the sun. Class differences gave the Russians Stalin and the Chinese, Mao. The OWS folks are idiots. I mean that sincerely. They lack the intelligence to offer solutions to the problems that bother them and look to others to make changes that they seek. Rather than trying to create they seek to destroy because they can't imagine anything else. To me, they chant a constant refrain: "We live in a free country but we don't like to read history. We live in a free country but we don't like the things the way that they are. We live in a free country but we are too stupid to do anything other than occupy space. We hate the people who are successful in our free country. Make change for us." Idiots.
They lack the intelligence to offer solutions to the (wrongheaded) changes that they seek. Rather than trying to create they seek to destroy because they can't imagine anything else.
I disagree immensely. It's not that they lack the intelligence to come up with a solution - they simply haven't organized enough to do so yet. And frankly, I can't fault someone for not being able to come up with a solution - these things are complicated.
But coming up with ideas is a good and noble thing, and that's what I want to see this movement focus on. Toss some ideas around. Get some talking points. Vague rabble-rousing doesn't lend itself to constructive discussion, but if someone in the Occupiers said, "OK, guys, let's pick a thing we want changed and talk about it," they might actually get somewhere.
Some people in the Occupy movement are probably "burn it down" anarchists. I doubt they're more than 10% of the movement, and you find those people everywhere. I mean, shit, I'd say the investment bankers who sold toxic mortgage-backed securities were "burn it down" anarchists too - they don't want rules to apply, and just want to get away with making ass tons of money.
The one thing underlying the entire conflict is the clash between our distributed and cooperative culture versus the old world's centralized and competitive culture. If there were to be leadership with specific demands, it would be a surrender. An admittance that centralization and competition are the way society has to work. They're demonstrating, quite literally, that our Internet generation wants a fundamentally different societal structure, and we can make it work. We will not tolerate the tyranny of the old world for much longer.
I really like the "distributed culture" line - it's a good summary of the clash that's going on.
However, some aspects of centralization can be good. The problem right now is that we've got centralization of resources and opportunities to get resources, and that prevents people from actually getting anywhere.
But we've also had distributed culture before. Like, way back in tribal days. And you know what? Tribes had leaders. Packs have leaders. I have yet to see a social organization that truly lacks leadership of some sort. You can have leaders without being "consolidated" in the way that things are right now - you just make sure everyone has the same opportunity to be a leader.
But you don't have to block people's livelihoods to get that attention, and the people who need to be inconvenienced don't take the goddamn subway.
I totally agree. I really don't understand why they don't specifically target the NYSE, CitiBank, Bank of America, the offices of FOX News, or something like that. Because it's easier to block traffic? Because you might get in more trouble if you messed with the NYSE?
My only argument in this thread on this particular topic, is disrupting transportation is an age old tactic that has been more or less effective in the past.
Yes, but I can't forget what Pete and Scott said and I totally agree - the difference is that those other protests had consistent, laser-focused messages, and charismatic leaders that stayed on message. They didn't have one guy say, "Dude, corporations suck!", and the next guy say, "Dude, save the whales and legalize marijuana!" I've actually seen this happen at OWS Baltimore.
Also, it's hard to argue with Scott on this one. His point about the many other delayed buses and train cars down the line not getting the message is pretty hard to beat. Those people will just be pissed off and late. They might figure out later that it was OWS, but by then they'll just remember that OWS made them have a crappy day.
Some people utilizing public transportation have crappy jobs with crappy supervisors who might even fire them if they're late. Do you think they'll join the movement that is responsible for them losing their jobs afterwards?
What specific platform would a hypothetical candidate need to have in order to garner the support of the Occupy movement?
. . .
I've laid out my stakes - restructure the tax brackets to account for the ridiculously wealthy - let's graduate up to a 75% top tier income tax at, say, $100 million+ - and raise the capital gains tax to 20% (or maybe 22%) for long-term investments. Short-term investments are taxed just like income already, so with restructured tax brackets, the government will get the revenue it needs.
Again, I totally agree. As I've said many times before, I've actually been around to experience the slow decline of the middle class, and it's been extrememly easy to see that it follows the changes in the tax code when they did away with the 90% tax brackets. It also tracked deregulation to an extent.
I also remember the arguments used back then. They seemed seducing at first - "Why tax the super-rich at 90%? What if you ever become super-rich? Do you want to waste that much on taxes?", "Why tax the rich and regulate the corporations so much? They create jobs. If we lighten the load for these poor people, benefits will trickle down to all of 'us'." - and, in 1982, you said, "Yeah, that sounds right . . . but wait, I seem to remember reading something in history class about what happened in the 1870s, 1890s, and the late 1920s when regulations weren't very strict or enforced very well, and the rich paid nearly no taxes whatsoever. No jobs were really created by super-rich guys being able to just enjoy their status of being super-rich, no benefits trickled down, and the lack of regulations didn't stimulate anything, they just allowed the greedy to make people's lives miserable and cause a depression in the 1870s and the 1930s.", to which the response was "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!!"
They're demonstrating, quite literally, that our Internet generation wants a fundamentally different societal structure, and we can make it work. We will not tolerate the tyranny of the old world for much longer.
I'd like to agree with this, but I don't see it yet. I think that, as long as the internet generation is distracted enough by things like Skyrim, (and watch - now there will probably be a few comments about Skyrim, proving how distracting it is.) they will not lobby for change of any sort.
I think, however, if today's politicians continue mess with the internet they way they seem to want to, with the net neutrality, the censorship laws, the Patiot Act restrictions, and so forth - and the internet is made too inconvenient to use, then we'll see some response from the internet generation.
It's not that they lack the intelligence to come up with a solution - they simply haven't organized enough to do so yet. And frankly, I can't fault someone for not being able to come up with a solution - these things are complicated.
Release is a feature. We're waiting. If what you say is true, they should have waited until they had a plan instead of starting with burning their political capital. I suspect you're going to be waiting for a while. In the meantime, other folks like the labor unions are happy to co-opt the Occupiers message.
They lack the intelligence to offer solutions to the (wrongheaded) changes that they seek. Rather than trying to create they seek to destroy because they can't imagine anything else.
I disagree immensely. It's not that they lack the intelligence to come up with a solution - they simply haven't organized enough to do so yet. And frankly, I can't fault someone for not being able to come up with a solution - these things are complicated.
But coming up with ideas is a good and noble thing, and that's what I want to see this movement focus on. Toss some ideas around. Get some talking points. Vague rabble-rousing doesn't lend itself to constructive discussion, but if someone in the Occupiers said, "OK, guys, let's pick a thing we want changed and talk about it," they might actually get somewhere.
Some people in the Occupy movement are probably "burn it down" anarchists. I doubt they're more than 10% of the movement, and you find those people everywhere. I mean, shit, I'd say the investment bankers who sold toxic mortgage-backed securities were "burn it down" anarchists too - they don't want rules to apply, and just want to get away with making ass tons of money.
Talking points or not OWS has made a pretty strong stance that they want change IN the system not a new system, they want congress to be less corrupt and they want business to be less competitive(in a cut throat way). Why don't they want an end to political parties? the electoral college? an end to congress? why don't they want a better education system so that more people can rise to become successes? By doing what they are doing now they are accepting that the system could be okay and that it just currently isn't. If I saw real points they stopped including people with their "you are the 99%" nonsense, it is arrogant and irritating.
Actually I think the "WE are the 99%" is a way better name. The Occupy name sort of pigeon holed them into doing Occupy type stuff. BTY they have occupied banks and such in the past, as you guys seem to have forgotten it wasn't that effective. They would be a lot better off if they went with the "we are the 99%". I was already in a dumb facebook group that was "We are the 98%" before this whole thing took off, It was pretty funny for that group of people... they were like "We welcome that other 1% as our allies we just don't like that OTHER 1%".
Now now. The individuals involved are impotent recursions of history, effects rather than causes. They're a symptom at worst, a harbinger at best. Their movement itself means nothing, in that we don't need to worry or wonder at their individual motivations.
The real power of disruptive civil protest is in the implied threat. It's the stand being taken by enough people saying "push me too far, and I'll lash out, for I have little left to lose." They may well have quite a bit to lose, but they don't quite realize it, and this is immaterial to the discussion.
The implications of general civil unrest become crucial once it reaches one of two junctures. The first is when those in power take note enough to cater to the movement for personal gain (as with the Tea party). The second is when the level of unrest, like a smoldering fire, begins to spark proper riots or actual terrorism.
In the case of the first, some of their goals will achieve a measure of progress, for those in power care little what they do so long as it does not endanger their continence of power. If a populist movement were truly strong, then politicians would cater to it relatively earnestly in order to tap that stream of votes.
In the case of the second, it means those in power now themselves have a choice. They can break the movement through force, or they can placate it with concessions. To do nether is to face the wrath of the general populace.
TL;DR Version: OWS is an effect, not a cause. A symptom, not a cure. A tool, not a craftsman.
Yea, I'm not as concerned with the lack of cohesion at this time, because it is a reaction. If things continue as they are, leaders and organization as well as a cohesive message will follow. Right now it's more of a "Please fix some of the problems we face please!" If not looked into, I wouldn't be surprised if more extreme or organized messages and tactics started to take place.
The protesters are not united enough in their ideology or methodology to make a difference. They are not respected by mainstream Americans. They are not presenting themselves well. Their goals are not well-articulated. What few ideals they cohesively support boil down to "we want it for free." There is not enough collective sympathy for tax reform to meet even the tiniest of those goals.
I'm not arguing that OWS is going to affect any real change. I'm saying that as a tactic, targeting transportation is a way to cause a large-scale disruption that's sure to keep your cause in the public eye.
This isn't the first time that this tactic has been used. The civil rights movement used bus sit-ins. The disability rights movement targeted the APTA. A successful protest over oil prices shut down transportation in Manila this summer. The gay rights movement staged metro line shut-downs in San Francisco.
This is a tactic that historically has been effective by balancing public inconvenience with "acceptable" damages. What is "acceptable" is up for argument, but temporary transport shut-downs are certainly preferable to car bombings, riots, or school/hospital disruptions.
OWS is an effect, not a cause. A symptom, not a cure. A tool, not a craftsman.
That's why I think that it's just waiting for the right leader. A good leader might really make something effective out of this.
The real power of disruptive civil protest is in the implied threat. It's the stand being taken by enough people saying "push me too far, and I'll lash out, for I have little left to lose."
I also think OWS is a sign that some people are beginning to think this way, but most people are still too comfortable with the way things are. As the political and economic situations deteriorate, which they are both bound to do, more people will begin to think this way and this movement (which will no longer be "OWS", but something evolved from OWS) will finally grow, become more cohesive and might actually do some good.
Anyone who thinks they need a leader is someone who is of the old way of thinking. Does the Internet have a leader? It's the single largest most important organization in the entire history of humanity. It has worked perfectly well for many years now without any leadership. There are organizations that govern individual systems, such as DNS, but there is no overarching leadership. Just like OWS has someone who runs the library, but nobody who runs the whole show.
A country consisting only of "our people" I honestly believe would require no single central authority. It will definitely lack efficiency with our current level of technology. That lack of efficiency matters a lot more in the real world than on the Internet, thanks to Moore's law. It may even lack so much efficiency as to be infeasible at the present time. But regardless of feasibility or practicality, it is perhaps the only structure that can accommodate our future generations. They may feel that any centralized power structure whatsoever is tyrannical, no matter how it rules.
Just polled all my tech co-workers. Five out of five are relatively sympathetic to the protests and five out of five agree you don't fuck with the trains.
Comments
At least there, we're not straw-manning at all. The entire city would turn against them in a heartbeat if they actually fucked with the subway (regardless of their cause). You would see people cheering as they were arrested in the stations. The movement, at least within the city, would be dead.
I've read a lot of comments to the effect of "Good, the media are finally giving it the attention it deserves." Really? Because anyone who's read the news in the past two months has to have heard about this. Where exactly was coverage lacking?
If the goal is to get attention and establish a national dialogue, the attention's been there. The discussions around OWS are good - this is bringing up discussions we need to have.
But you don't have to block people's livelihoods to get that attention, and the people who need to be inconvenienced don't take the goddamn subway.
The problem now is that the Occupy movement seems to think that nobody else "gets" it. No, people get it just fine - it's just that without a clear motivation and arguable points, the Occupiers are just a nuisance that will be ignored.
However, a large amount of New York state residents are completely disengaged from the political process anyhow, only maybe 32% of voters turned out in 2010, dead last in the nation compared to any other state.
But if they mess with the trains, they will have no friends in New York and a large hostile city stalking their political aspirations.
And moreover, I still ask: how? Not one person has answered that question yet. I've read statistics saying that the Occupiers are, for the most part, 35 or younger. That age bracket has the lowest voter turnout of anyone.
I doubt the Occupiers think of themselves as a "Rock the Vote" movement, and if they did, the odds are that the majority of them wouldn't vote.
What do they want to change in order to fix these problems? Because I guarantee I can walk into a group of occupiers and get different opinions about how things should actually be changed. First of all, the Occupiers aren't all poor. In fact, many are doing "just fine," and part of the problem is that the vast majority of people will remain "just fine" their entire lives with no actual hope of mobility. If this is about elections, the movement still needs to tell candidates what they want them to do.
What specific platform would a hypothetical candidate need to have in order to garner the support of the Occupy movement?
EDIT: Disenfranchisement is common, but it's good. The Occupiers are pissed because things are bad and need to change. That's awesome, but the problem is that everyone else is now waiting for the next step - what do we actually change?
I've laid out my stakes - restructure the tax brackets to account for the ridiculously wealthy - let's graduate up to a 75% top tier income tax at, say, $100 million+ - and raise the capital gains tax to 20% (or maybe 22%) for long-term investments. Short-term investments are taxed just like income already, so with restructured tax brackets, the government will get the revenue it needs.
The one thing underlying the entire conflict is the clash between our distributed and cooperative culture versus the old world's centralized and competitive culture. If there were to be leadership with specific demands, it would be a surrender. An admittance that centralization and competition are the way society has to work. They're demonstrating, quite literally, that our Internet generation wants a fundamentally different societal structure, and we can make it work. We will not tolerate the tyranny of the old world for much longer.
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/17/interview-with-the-occupy-wall.html
I know you're not part of the Occupiers, but you're not making any really solid argument s in support of the blocking transit tactic.
Idiots.
But coming up with ideas is a good and noble thing, and that's what I want to see this movement focus on. Toss some ideas around. Get some talking points. Vague rabble-rousing doesn't lend itself to constructive discussion, but if someone in the Occupiers said, "OK, guys, let's pick a thing we want changed and talk about it," they might actually get somewhere.
Some people in the Occupy movement are probably "burn it down" anarchists. I doubt they're more than 10% of the movement, and you find those people everywhere. I mean, shit, I'd say the investment bankers who sold toxic mortgage-backed securities were "burn it down" anarchists too - they don't want rules to apply, and just want to get away with making ass tons of money.
However, some aspects of centralization can be good. The problem right now is that we've got centralization of resources and opportunities to get resources, and that prevents people from actually getting anywhere.
But we've also had distributed culture before. Like, way back in tribal days. And you know what? Tribes had leaders. Packs have leaders. I have yet to see a social organization that truly lacks leadership of some sort. You can have leaders without being "consolidated" in the way that things are right now - you just make sure everyone has the same opportunity to be a leader.
Also, it's hard to argue with Scott on this one. His point about the many other delayed buses and train cars down the line not getting the message is pretty hard to beat. Those people will just be pissed off and late. They might figure out later that it was OWS, but by then they'll just remember that OWS made them have a crappy day.
Some people utilizing public transportation have crappy jobs with crappy supervisors who might even fire them if they're late. Do you think they'll join the movement that is responsible for them losing their jobs afterwards? Again, I totally agree. As I've said many times before, I've actually been around to experience the slow decline of the middle class, and it's been extrememly easy to see that it follows the changes in the tax code when they did away with the 90% tax brackets. It also tracked deregulation to an extent.
I also remember the arguments used back then. They seemed seducing at first - "Why tax the super-rich at 90%? What if you ever become super-rich? Do you want to waste that much on taxes?", "Why tax the rich and regulate the corporations so much? They create jobs. If we lighten the load for these poor people, benefits will trickle down to all of 'us'." - and, in 1982, you said, "Yeah, that sounds right . . . but wait, I seem to remember reading something in history class about what happened in the 1870s, 1890s, and the late 1920s when regulations weren't very strict or enforced very well, and the rich paid nearly no taxes whatsoever. No jobs were really created by super-rich guys being able to just enjoy their status of being super-rich, no benefits trickled down, and the lack of regulations didn't stimulate anything, they just allowed the greedy to make people's lives miserable and cause a depression in the 1870s and the 1930s.", to which the response was "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!!" I'd like to agree with this, but I don't see it yet. I think that, as long as the internet generation is distracted enough by things like Skyrim, (and watch - now there will probably be a few comments about Skyrim, proving how distracting it is.) they will not lobby for change of any sort.
I think, however, if today's politicians continue mess with the internet they way they seem to want to, with the net neutrality, the censorship laws, the Patiot Act restrictions, and so forth - and the internet is made too inconvenient to use, then we'll see some response from the internet generation.
The real power of disruptive civil protest is in the implied threat. It's the stand being taken by enough people saying "push me too far, and I'll lash out, for I have little left to lose." They may well have quite a bit to lose, but they don't quite realize it, and this is immaterial to the discussion.
The implications of general civil unrest become crucial once it reaches one of two junctures. The first is when those in power take note enough to cater to the movement for personal gain (as with the Tea party). The second is when the level of unrest, like a smoldering fire, begins to spark proper riots or actual terrorism.
In the case of the first, some of their goals will achieve a measure of progress, for those in power care little what they do so long as it does not endanger their continence of power. If a populist movement were truly strong, then politicians would cater to it relatively earnestly in order to tap that stream of votes.
In the case of the second, it means those in power now themselves have a choice. They can break the movement through force, or they can placate it with concessions. To do nether is to face the wrath of the general populace.
TL;DR Version: OWS is an effect, not a cause. A symptom, not a cure. A tool, not a craftsman.
This isn't the first time that this tactic has been used. The civil rights movement used bus sit-ins. The disability rights movement targeted the APTA. A successful protest over oil prices shut down transportation in Manila this summer. The gay rights movement staged metro line shut-downs in San Francisco.
This is a tactic that historically has been effective by balancing public inconvenience with "acceptable" damages. What is "acceptable" is up for argument, but temporary transport shut-downs are certainly preferable to car bombings, riots, or school/hospital disruptions.
A country consisting only of "our people" I honestly believe would require no single central authority. It will definitely lack efficiency with our current level of technology. That lack of efficiency matters a lot more in the real world than on the Internet, thanks to Moore's law. It may even lack so much efficiency as to be infeasible at the present time. But regardless of feasibility or practicality, it is perhaps the only structure that can accommodate our future generations. They may feel that any centralized power structure whatsoever is tyrannical, no matter how it rules.