For those among our readership who do not follow Spanish Politics, Catalunya, the region of Spain most easily recognized by its leading city, Barcelona, held a vote on two matters of the utmost importance to the Catalans. The questions were posed in the following manner:
1) Do you want Catalunya to be a State?
2) Do you want that State be Independent?
The vote today in Catalunya, of which 80.72% voted “yea” on both questions, was not sanctioned or recognized by the Spanish government in Madrid, other than to say it was nothing more than propaganda.
According to The Guardian, roughly 2 million of the 5.4 million persons who were eligible to vote cast a ballot today, a roughly 37% turnout, which means that today, roughly 32.3% of those living in Catalunya took the time to submit a symbolic ballot in favor of their Independence from Spain. For a quick comparison of this figure, 68.9% of eligible voters cast a ballot in Spain’s last General Election in November of 2011.
While voter turnout today in Catalunya may not seem impressive on the surface, it takes on more meaning when one considers that, as it was unsanctioned by the Spanish Government, over 40,000 volunteers took it upon themselves to receive and count the ballots.
The Catalans have employed what we call Classic, or Grass-roots, Democracy in an effort to allow their citizens to determine in a civilized manner the most basic of questions with regards to self governance: Shall we, as a region, be Independent?
Admittedly, Catalunya is in a unique position to do so. Most regions, for which Independence is more a romantic idea than a practical one (the most recent example being Scotland’s referendum to break ties with the UK), have much to lose and little to gain by declaring Independence. Catalunya, on the other hand, is essentially self-sufficient and for them, remaining part of Spain has little upside.
For a time, the argument could be made that Spain provided Catalunya access to markets that it otherwise could not have sold into. Today, this is a non-issue, as the EU trade agreements would continue to cover an Independent Catalan State.
The Spanish Government has a big problem. While Spanish officials are swiftly and publicly denouncing the Catalans for holding what, in their mind, had already been declared an “illegal” vote, the Catalans have cleverly and very publicly made a mockery of what passes today as “Democracy” in the Sovereign States of the world who embrace this model of governance.
For what is Democracy if not the people’s right to self determination? Yet modern democracy for most boils down to questions of which hand picked candidate will occupy an embedded power structures, and whether or not to increase the existing tax and regulatory burdens imposed by this power structure.
With today’s actions, the Catalans struck at the heart of the existing system. Our guess is that one day, they and many other regions in similar situations will enjoy sovereign status as peers to their former oppressors in the EU.
Throwing off the EU’s chains, however, would be a matter settled by arms, as the French, American, and every other successful revolution against the clutches of Empire have shown. It is not the nature of Empire to negotiate or put to vote matters of self-determination.
Oregon Taxes Weed
In our local elections, our fellow Oregonians chose to decriminalize marijuana. Joining them were the people of Washington, DC, making a total of four jurisdictions in the US that have changed the innocuous plant from a huge drain on tax revenue to a potential source of revenue with the stroke of a pen.
Weed: It got your parents kicked out of school, now it can pay for yours.
Which way did The Mint vote on the issue? We didn’t. You can read our reasons for abstaining from voting on State and Federal Matters in the links below:
As the Catalans have seen in the case of the Spanish, government, once it exceeds a certain size, ceases to serve the people who created it and becomes at best parasitic and at worst, antagonistic and violent as it increasingly resorts to the use of force in an effort to advance a failed system.
With the election cycle in full swing, we turn our attention not to the national scene, where two people we will refer to only as BO and MR are bombarding the nation with empty promises in hopes that the dangling chads in November will fall their way, but to more pressing local matters.
Here at The Mint, we recognize that the natural operation of anarchy renders much of what happens at the highest levels of government, which in the US means those seated at the State and Federal levels increasingly irrelevant. While they have the potential to do great harm, government on a large-scale generally suffers from a form of paralysis which makes their decisions increasingly meaningless to the average Joe. They have grown to the point where they are nothing more than an amoeba, which at best should be ignored and at worst, actively avoided.
As such, we consider it a great waste of time to obsess over them.
Government at the local level, meaning the City and, more importantly, the County level, has a much greater direct impact on the lives of its constituents. As such, we see government at the City and County level as absolutely necessary to the smooth functioning of society. We also present, for your consideration, that participation in government at a local level is not only time well spent, it can be profitable.
A great opportunity to guide public policy at a local level is presented frequently at events that are generally referred to as requests for public comment. While in some cases, these events are held to give an air of legitimacy to an already planned action, some of them present a grand opportunity to sway local policy and public resource investment decisions. Given this grand opportunity, it may come as a surprise that these events are often overlooked, even by those who would be directly affected by the action being considered.
For your perusal and enjoyment, we present the following example of yours truly taking advantage of such an opportunity presented by our County’s Minor Betterment Project Committee.
Each year, the committee is presented with a list of potential minor public works projects which have been vetted by overpaid consultants and assigned a ranking based on a point system which is theoretically designed by the consultant to capture potential public benefit of a project in a tidy little number.
This is like the BCS for your tax dollars, and, as any NCAA coach knows, it never hurts to lobby your case, especially when the voting is tight.
We recently found out that a much-needed improvement project, one that could modestly increase our property value, had made the “Top 20” of the latest version of the public works BCS.
Like any good coach, we picked up our digital writing implement and began to lobby for our own, local, pet project. The result of this activity is what we call “A Passionate Appeal for a Sidewalk,” a transcript of which follows:
As both a property owner and frequent pedestrian of this stretch of Madison Road, I can attest to the large-scale safety hazard that the lack of a pedestrian walkway on this stretch of road presents daily. Not only to the school children who wait for the bus on the thoroughfare during the morning, but all manner of pedestrians, bicyclists, school bus drivers, and vehicle operators who daily traverse it. Were it not for the vigilance of the drivers on this stretch of road, this perilous route would no doubt be the site of a lamentable tally of traffic fatalities.
For those who have not seen it, Madison road is narrow and increasingly relied upon by all manner of commuters (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists) during rush hours. During these peak times, it is commonplace to see cars nearly miss a head on collision with each other as they make a noble attempt to give way for pedestrians (a majority of which are school children) who literally have no choice but to walk along the 12 inch border of the existing roadway alloted to them. Alternative routes for this pedestrian trail are far enough away to that they are not viable options, and, as we mentioned before, pedestrian traffic on this stretch of road continues to increase.
While the sidewalk project proposed to remedy this dangerous situation is the most expensive on the list, and can hardly be considered minor, the money spent will likely spare a tragedy involving the dangerous mix of vehicles and school children which is present every day of the school year. If the goal of these projects is to increase the safety of the community, this project has perhaps the greatest potential to do just that. In a sense, it is long overdue.
We, your neighbors along this deceptively dangerous stretch of Madison road, appreciate the committee’s attention to this matter.
What do you think, will our impassioned plea sway the committee to divert funds into our pet project? We should know by late October whether or not ours comes out on top. Either way, civic involvement, on a local level, is necessary given the proximity of the governing body. While the body and budget itself is small, its potential to wreak havoc on your everyday life is too big to ignore, just ask anyone who has found themselves on the wrong end of a dispute with an activist home owners association board.
As for the State and Federal versions of Government, in their late, degenerate, bankrupt form they can do little more than create the illusion of watching your every move and controlling the details of your life. Despite their large-scale propaganda and their presence at the airport gate, they are mostly harmless. Your impassioned pleas and time spent informing yourself on issues are best spent at the local level.
Who knows? You may even save a life or make the world a better place, all while increasing your property value at the government’s expense.
It is the closest thing to Nirvana that the governed can experience.
A colleague from our grad school days in Barcelona recently contacted us from Madrid with an exciting project he and a partner are developing. As such, we are unwittingly trying our hand at the emergent Natural Cosmetics Market.
While Spain and Europe in general appear to be falling apart at the seams, his company is experiencing a boom. As with most smaller enterprises, all it lacks is some well guided investment to transform this mini-boom into a supersonic boom. “El Empujon”, we call it. The big push to get them over the hump, to open new markets, scale production, and create countless jobs in the value chain.
It is just this sort of thing that Governments in the West espouse in word but make nearly impossible in deed.
While the products are all natural, they may be subject to FDA approvals. Then, once the governmental hurdles are cleared, we face a fiercely competitive market where access to the final consumer is tightly controlled by what amounts to a monopoly or at best, an oligarchy, in the cosmetics world. Then there are patents, customs, and any number of mines in the field which must be avoided or diffused to successfully bring the products to market.
How shall The Mint attack this Goliath? We are working on a strategy, which we call, the “Heart of the Beast.” The details of which, for obvious reasons, we shall keep a well guarded secret for the moment.
More on this to come.
In our last correspondence, we presented a hypothesis for dealing with government. Now, we must move the hypothesis down a level. How, then would one test the hypothesis by embracing anarchy, or atheism with regards to government, in a place like Oregon?
Oregon is a State which places a relatively large amount of faith in its political system and, by extension, the power of the government to solve social problems.
The approach seems to work for most. The territory is home to an abundance of natural resources and a great number of people who are willing to go along with the government’s program. In these conditions, the idea and mechanisms of government are tolerated and to an extent championed, for it is possible to live in Oregon and enjoy a relatively high standard of living despite the waste inherent in governmental activities.
However, one can only wonder as to what may be possible here in the great Northwest were the government not to hyper regulate every industry or confiscate 9% of the wages earned by those who labor in its borders (on top of the roughly 21% that the Federal government lays claim to).
Is the average citizen better off living on 70% of his wages? Or, put another way, does the average citizen derive enough benefit from being “governed” that he or she would value it at roughly one third of his or her income?
There are burning questions, fellow taxpayer, that every citizen would do well to ask themselves from time to time. If the mechanism of government were to go away, or be reduced to the spheres where it paradoxically does add value to the economy (note that, were this the case, it would technically cease to be government and become yet another capitalistic enterprise operating in the anarchic surroundings), would it not hold that everyone, including those who work in the unproductive areas of government, would be better off on a relative basis?
The answer, of course, is yes, unless one finds themselves in a position which relies upon the government being able to confiscate a certain amount of resources or the privileges which the mechanism of government may grant them.
However, even this minority would be better off once they adjusted to the reality of life without the idea of government.
What about the Disaster aid, Police and Fire Departments? Aren’t they at least necessary?
Of course they are! And for that very reason, private organizations would quickly spring up to fill these vital roles. In fact, they already exist. They are commonly known as Security and Insurance companies. In Anarcho-Capitalist theory, the array of companies which would arise are called “Private Defense Agencies.” Anyone skeptical about what would arise in a purely anarchic system to replace functions currently delegated to the Nation State is encouraged to study this theory.
For in some ways, the Nation State is simply an over diversified and poorly run Private Defense Agency.
As with any failing capitalistic entity, when a Nation State has gone from being a servant of the people to active enslavement, its lack of popularity invariably shows up in its deteriorating financial condition. This fact alone is proof that Anarchy is the context in which the Nation States of the world today act and operate. On this basis alone it is proper to constantly question the relevancy of the State with regards to its utility against viable alternatives.
Yet despite the failure and bankruptcy of nearly all of the Nation States that have existed and the presence of well developed theories which offer alternatives to these failures, the mechanism of the Nation State remains in place and retains for itself a monopolistic power over defense, welfare, as well as the right to generally meddle in all of the affairs of its subjects at whim.
When living within geographical boundaries of a failing Nation State, it is wise to be prepared to live as if it did not exist, which means that functions vital for one’s existence must be secured by the individual or a cooperative independant of the failing Nation State, for it has been observed throughout history that the authorities of a failing Nation State have a tendency to pillag…we mean, relieve their subjec…we mean, citizens, of their means of sustenance by the most expedient means available.
What is the most expedient means possible? If the Nation State controls the money supply, they simply print money and acquire resources, which is more the rule than the exception circa 2012.
Once a Nation State has begun to relieve their citizens of their wealth in this way, it is possible that those who understand what is going on will convince all to resist by way of armed conflict. However, this is rarely effective, for it tends to replace one form of tyranny with another. These methods rely upon might to make right, which most thinking persons are keenly aware is a losing proposition.
Persons and Nation States, especially those that are desperate and have resorted to robbery, rarely give up their arms willingly or peacefully, so it is up to the individual to peacefully disarm it. This is best done by using a tactic that is not coincidentally very effective against the school yard bully.
How can one do this? For practical purposes, we have compiled a brief list of steps which one could take to avoid and thereby peacefully resist a Nation State which has failed:
1.Money, trade what you want to: Conduct trade in a currency other than the one used to pay the tax. For it is proper to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. While it may be inconvenient at first to trade using alternative currencies, one may find that it is often not obligatory to use Caesar’s money.
2.Rely on Common sense: Ignore laws and excessive regulations and respect the free will of those you work with. If someone is willing to work for you for less than minimum wage, allow them to work, do not deprive them of a job to comply with an arbitrary wage set by a bureaucrat. Make no conscious distinction between contract workers and employees, for both are freely performing work.
3.An important caveat to this is to not brag about flouting unreasonable laws and regulations. Assume that if you are breaking a legitimate labor law, for example, both you and the employee will know of it and have dealt with it long before the government will deal with it. It is the false hope that government is regulating untenable working conditions that gives rise to untenable working conditions in the first place.
4.Come out of Babylon: If you live in a place where the microscope of government regulation is unavoidable, move until you can freely live a safe distance from it.
5.Cross borders: If language is not a barrier and your trade or profession is not location specific, there should be no resistance from either government to crossing national borders in search of better opportunities, for all stand to benefit from this.
6.Sell what consumers want, not what the government allows you to sell. The greatest test of a product (food included) is public opinion. Government approval of products, like labor laws tend to give the population a false sense of security.
As we have stated above, if the Nation State’s intentions are pure and in harmony with Natural Law, there should be no resistance from them to an individual who chooses to take these steps.
If, on the other hand, the bankrupt Nation State begins to pass and enforce laws against these actions, restricting freedom and by default, trade, in a vain effort to pillage its subjects to pay the politicians’ debts, it then shows itself to be predatory.
Anyone who has attempted to take any the steps above has likely encountered some sort of resistance to taking these actions. What may come as a surprise is that the resistance may not have come directly from the government itself, for the government of a failing Nation State, or any Nation State for that matter, does not have the resources to enforce all of the rules that they put on the books.
Rather, resistance, more often than not, comes from well meaning but misguided fellow citizens who are unwittingly trained by the government’s education system to deter these brave souls on the questionable moral basis of simply obeying the rules, no matter how unreasonable they may be.
“I am an atheist with regards to the world’s government, for I have chosen to live in the Kingdom of God”
Yesterday at The Mint, we took quite a ride through Portland’s plastic bag ban, bisacksuality, the virtues of non-violent protest, anarchy, atheism, and the imaginary construct of government.
If you missed it, we encourage you to give it a read as it will aid greatly in understanding today’s installment. Of course, if your prefer to jump cold turkey into today’s Mint, by all means, carry on.
And onward we must toil, for this is exceedingly important.
Yesterday we offered that the best way to test the legitimacy of government, that is, its right to govern, would be to simply live as if the government did not exist and see where resistance came from.
If resistance were to come from a solid majority, then that would lend credence to the necessity of government. If resistance were to appear in the form of a minority relying on an imaginary framework to create and enforce a series of rules, imposed by one group on other groups in order to gain or maintain an unearned privilege, the legitimacy of the government should be questioned.
Not the legitimacy of those who are governing at the time, mind you, rather, the legitimacy of the apparatus which allows such rule by the minority at the expense of the majority.
For if a majority would be materially better off by simply shedding the illusion of government, why does the idea of government persist?
Let’s face it, it is nice to sleep at night with the idea that someone is watching over us and our assets. Even more comfort may be found in the idea that, were something to happen to ourselves or our assets, we would probably still be taken care of.
Yet these same promises are also the promises of the Almighty God! Why, then, if one were to believe in the God of the Bible, would it make sense to attribute the power of God to a government which is by definition an assembly of fallible men?
The answer, most would say, is that God is unseen, while men, while they may be fallible, can be observed to be acting. This logic is clear. Some may even take it a step further and claim that the government is God’s agent to provide protection and provision to His people. There is certainly support for this idea in scripture. However, it is important to watch how the men act before blindly ascribing supernatural powers to them.
In the case of government, the confiscation of n
early 30% of a person’s income, which is what the average American may expect to pay in the form of Federal, State, and Local taxes, does not exactly fit with most peoples idea of the preservation of assets, nor does the idea of restricting the ability of one to own a weapon fit with the preservation of one’s life.
Yet it is clearly stated in the Bible that he who trusts in God shall be both protected and provided for.
How can this paradox be reconciled? For it is one thing to deny the existence of the unseen God.It is quite another to deny the existence of God on one hand, and on the other assign the attributes of the non existent God to an entity which consistently operates in a manner contrary to the self interest and freedom of the individual, which presumably would be the reason that an individual would deny the existence of God in the first place.
For the sake of consistency, then, the professing atheist must be a professing anarchist as well. If not, one would be at a minimum inconsistent and possbily insane to assent to most if not all of the actions of the government, for the sacrifices required by most governments on the earth far exceed those requested of humanity by the Living God.
Those who know God, on the other hand, would be inconsistent were they to declare that God is their provider and protector and then eschew what God asks of them in favor of fulfilling a requirement imposed upon them by the government when the two come into conflict with each other.
So what gives? Is it possible to be an atheist with regards to the world’s governments without living in defiance of nor toiling against them? Is it possible to simply deal with the inconveniences which appear as a result of a large part of the world’s population acting upon the belief that the government really exists?
In other words, is it possible to live in the world but not be of the world, as the apostle Paul alluded to? For to do so is to choose to live in the Kingdom of God.
The only way to know for sure is for both the atheist and the believer to peacefully and actively test the hypothesis of a government’s legitimacy by living their lives as if the government did not exist, and then patiently wait and see where any resistence to their chosen way of life came from.
Aslong as they are not stealing from of hurting anyone, they should be just fine, right?
There are certain questions which one encounters in everyday life which demand a shocking answer.
For example, the everyday grocery bagging inquiry “Would you like paper or plastic?” can be responded to with the customary preference. This is the routine response and requires no creativity whatsoever.
A prepared, slightly creative individual may think outside of the box and have their response prepared. “I don’t need a bag, I’ve brought my own,” which is interpreted to mean “I am saving the earth and thereby reject your greedy corporate attempt to deliberately pollute it by rudely offering me an already manufactured bag for my own convenience.”
Then there is the creative genius, the one who rises above the imaginary philosophical bickering and takes what is given to them while at the same time disarming the mythical compulsion which the slightly creative person above felt threatened by. What is their shocking response to this common question?
“I’ll take either one, I’m bisacksual.”
In the same way, when approached with the somewhat common question posed by an eager petitioner “are you registered to vote?” One can give the standard yes or no answer which the question requires.
The slightly creative person may turn the question into an opportunity to share their point of view. “That depends, what is the issue?” Depending upon the issue, they may either wholeheartedly lend their support and sign the petition or engage in a lengthy debate about the error in supporting the proposed legislation.
Enter the creative genius, as in the grocery check-out line, they rise above the imaginary philosophical bickering about what the government should or shouldn’t require everyone to do and at the same time disarm the mythical compulsion which caused the slightly creative person to enter into a lengthy and meaningless debate. What, then, is their shocking response to this common question?
“I’m an atheist with regards to government.”
This is dedicated to the creative geniuses.
At the moment, we are residing in Oregon, where plastic bags are frowned upon to the point that the City of Portland passed an ordinance intended to reduce the use of them. The result is that large retailers in Portland are now one sack outlets, which not only clashes with Portland’s tendency towards plurality in any number of spheres, it has noticeably diminished the quality of the paper sacks available.
The great irony in the ban on bisacksuality is that the same people seen at City Hall protesting the “forced” use of plastic bags are likely to be the same ones who will chain themselves to a tree when the increased demand for paper sacks resulting from this action (the butterfly effect, if you will) leads to the acceleration in the destruction of rainforests in the Amazon.
On the bright side, the plastic bag ban and resulting plea to save the rainforests should combine to help Oregon’s ailing lumber industry in the short term.
Yet all of this nonsense about plastic bags, the rejection of bisacksual Portlanders, and backdoor stimulation of the Oregon lumber industry serves to illustrate the effects that government actions have on the population and industry.
As Henry Hazlitt astutely observed in his classic “Economics in one lesson,” actions taken by governments have the exact opposite long term effect on reality as that which was intended. For this reason alone, all government mandates must be met with suspicion.
Yet none of these government actions and the resulting imbalances would be possible without an unwavering faith in the government on the part of the people, which is why the only hope for the world to escape the crazy cycles inherent in placing faith in the government is for the populace to become not militant, but agnostic towards the actions of their government as they would a well intentioned but clumsy sidekick.
Take the example of Portland’s plastic bag ban. Were the disenfranchised bisacksual population of Portland to violently oppose the plastic bag police (which, most certainly, do not exist), they would be wasting their time and resources only to perpetuate a system which promises nothing more but endless power struggles and the short lived thrill of victory or agony of defeat.
Even if bisackuality were to be legalized, no sooner would the ink be dry on the new ordinance than would a band of sacktivist warriors covered in plastic armor be organizing to take back their right to a paper only Portland. The bisacksuals would then organize and revolt, etc.
To be clear, we have no strong feelings one way or the other on the sack issue, we have merely chosen to shamelessly embellish upon the theme in order to make a larger point.
The point is that militancy breeds militancy, and violence breeds violence. Ghandi, and more recently Martin Luther King, understood that long term, permanent change could never come about by force of arms. Rather, they understood that the only way to test whether or not an idea was true or simply temporary public opinion was to live in peaceful defiance of the idea and tolerate whatever opposition they met with.
In the case of King, the good reverend was thrust into the civil rights battle in the Southern US. For those who may be unfamiliar with this piece of history, we will oversimplify it by saying that there were rules in the South which demanded that African Americans sit in the back of the bus.
Rosa Parks and thousands of other African Americans began to put this rule to the test, not by petitioning the powers that be for permission to sit in front of the bus, but rather, by sitting in front of the bus as if the rule did not exist.
Would some supernatural force come and move her to the back? Or would those who used the rule to gain privilege for themselves be the ones who would force her to the back of the bus or even deny her entry onto the bus in the first place?
The creative geniuses amongst us already know the answer.
The deeper question which must be addressed, then, is not whether or not each individual rule is necessary, but rather, is a government which imposes rules and forces those effected to put them the test, a necessity? Or is it merely an imaginary framework to erect a series of rules which are imposed by one group on other groups in order to gain or maintain an unearned privilege?
The only valid way to test this theory would be for one was to live their life as if the government did not really exist. What if one were to test this theory not by withdrawing from the government or fighting to change it, for both courses of action would be to acknowledge its existence, but by simply deciding not to believe in it?
In other words, what if one decided to stop attributing power to the government by simply changing their own mind about its existence and acting accordingly? What if the simplest path to freedom were to become a peaceful Anarchist? An atheist with regards to government, as it were?
These questions must burn until another day. Please share your thoughts below, as we are intrigued.
On October 6th, Portland joined other US cities by kicking off its own version of the increasingly popular Occupy Wall Street protests with approximately 5,000 people amassing at Tom McCall Waterfront Park where SW Ankeny meets Naito Parkway. While no specific manifesto has come forth, the group generally comes across as unified against corporate greed and corruption.
Approaching Occupy Portland’s ground zero, it became apparent that the perhaps the only thing that unified this loose coalition of protesters was a general feeling of discontent. It was equally apparent that general discontent can be a powerful unifying force, and that as the marches and occupation got underway, the protesters found in one another the camaraderie that is inherent in common struggle and sacrifice.
Amongst the many and varied grievances that could be observed by reading the protesters’ signs, flags, and slogans, were: support for the cause of the Palestinians, pleas to tax the rich, outrage against corporate greed, and long-suffering environmental concerns. While these grievances have been longstanding for certain sectors of the population, what was most striking was the breadth of demographic and socio-economic makeup of those gathering to launch Occupy Portland.
Protesters of all Stripes Gathering to kick off Occupy Portland on Thursday, October 6th 2011
While students resembling John Lennon and Guy Fawkes masks tended to stand out in the crowd, the presence of veterans, college students, retirees, and stay at home mothers spoke to the wide ranging discontent that has gripped Americans who are increasingly identifying themselves as the “other 99%” in sharp contrast to the top 1%, the label that has come to represent the wealthy and corporate interests.
As the exuberance of the protesters grew and their numbers at Waterfront Park began to swell, a few blocks away, up Burnside and 5th, the mood was quite different.
Despite assurances by both the protesters and Portland Mayor Sam Adams that the protests would be peaceful, financial and governmental institutions, which imagined themselves in the path of the unannounced route of the march, were taking precautions. Banks planned to lock their doors and the increased Police and private security presence in the neighborhood was conspicuous.
There were rumors of Anarchists from Eugene coming to cause trouble. Adding to this perceived threat was the uncertainty of the effects on transportation in the downtown core. Needless to say, on this autumn day, Portland did not feel like the relaxed City in which we dwell.
Thankfully, these fears were unfounded. Both Protesters and Police are to be commended for tacitly working together to maintain the peace and dignity of the protest. Mayor Adams went as far as to waive the City’s no camping ordinance so that protesters could pitch their tents and stay the night.
Whatever the outcome, it is refreshing to see that Occupy Portland is helping so many people to find their voice and the City of Portland, true to form, welcoming them with open arms.