Occupy Wallstreet

[Professor S]

I was wondering what everyone thinks about this movement? Personally I'm torn. I think the movement identifies serious and real issues, but my fear is that the solutions that will be found will be government-based and therefore just make the problems even worse.

[The Germanator]

I went for a couple of days to Zuccotti Park for a few hours at a time and it's definitely interesting there. A lot of lively conversation going around. Some more sane than others, but basically it's a lot of like-minded people of different ages and races standing up for something...and unfortunately drum circles, but what can you do?

I agree with you in that it seems like lots of the problems are governmental and systematic, and I don't see how that changes very easily, but at least this movement is trying to pointing that out. It's still tough to say what will come out of it, but I support the idea for sure.

I thought this article has a pretty good statement about what exactly is wrong while pointing out misconceptions about why people are protesting. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025

[Vampyr]

I admit I haven't read too much into or kept up very well, but from my perspective it looks like the protesters are very angry and have very valid criticisms and concerns...but I haven't seen or heard of any possible solutions they have put forth.

Do they actually have a plan, or any demands that they want met? Obviously they feel that the distribution of wealth is severely skewed (and it is), but what exactly do they want done about it?

[Professor S]

Do they actually have a plan, or any demands that they want met? Obviously they feel that the distribution of wealth is severely skewed (and it is), but what exactly do they want done about it?

Therein lies my distress. These protests seem to be a reflection of a general, primal consensus that "something ain't right", but to most of the protesters what that is ranges from completely blaming corporations to completely blaming government. My problem with protests like this are that they tend to only engage an individuals reptilian brain, and that encourages shallow thinking based on emotion and not complex thought. My hope is that people take the opportunity to really examine our current economic system as a whole, and not simply attack the wealthy, but ask what is currently in place that has allowed the wealthy to grow so much more quickly over the last 15 years than everyone else?

"For every problem there is always a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong." ~ Mark Twain

[Bond]

Well... it's certainly an interesting movement, but without point or purpose, I don't see it going far. There have been comparisons to the tea party, but I doubt it will have a similar political impact.

From what I can surmise, the protesters are angry about increasing income equality - to that, I would say two things.

1. It's true:

http://blog.american.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cboie.jpg
(CBO)

Recently (as in yesterday or today) CBO estimates do indicate the richest 1% have seen their income increase exponentially more than any other income tier. Why? Hard to say. I have a theory that if you take out the richest 1% of that 1%, the increase would dramatically decline (i.e. the rapid increase is due to a select few high-earners).

2. Everyone is better off than in the past:

http://blog.american.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/aeichart.jpg
(From a study done by two profs from Notre Dame & U Chicago)

3. Would taxing the richest 1% on the first chart at a higher marginal rate have any effect on the second chart? I really doubt it. There's a disconnect between these two issues, but because of politics, they're intertwined.

Anyway, I think the Occupy Wallstreet movement should be attacking cronyism - an issue liberals and conservatives could possibly agree upon.

[Professor S]

Anyway, I think the Occupy Wallstreet movement should be attacking cronyism - an issue liberals and conservatives could possibly agree upon.

This. Unfortunately, people are trying to make this about punishing the wealthy instead of evening the playing field to allow for greater income mobility. It's amazing how we continue old arguments without finding solutions.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gMLjkt87ICo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you boil the arguments down, one believes in the power of people to better themselves, and the other simply wants to make people more comfortable in their inevitable meager existence.

[KillerGremlin]

I enjoy the concept of Occupy Wallstreet. People keep saying there is no easy solution and it is going to take time. We've been hearing that for a while, and it makes you wonder if we need a big event to propel the necessary changes forward.

Historically, you have major political unrest followed by civil war; your country gets taken over by another country; you introduce a new political party (back when this option was relevant).

And we are more global than ever. The US problems are the world's problems.

I'm just saying, I hope we continue to feel the air of energy and political unrest, because I much prefer this energy to sheer apathy. Give it time and some real thinkers will emerge with a solution. I feel like you're bound to recruit more problem-solvers when you have wind under your sails.

I can't think of any more plays on the English language or metaphors to pepper my post with. So I'll disclaimer by saying Obama is full of shit. But we do need change.

[thatmariolover]

I think this movement is underestimated by a lot of people. In part, this is because the mainstream media coverage has been shamefully bad. But also, because many of the people who should be protesting are the people who can't afford to leave their jobs to do so.

As I see it, the main roadblock to progress between protesters and those on Wall Street (and frankly, a large portion of congress) is a difference in psychology.

Most successful individuals tend to give themselves credit for everything they've earned, and think people that are unsuccessful must be lazy, apathetic, or otherwise undeserving. Less successful individuals tend to see the cards stacked against them. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, history warns that telling the masses to eat cake is a bad idea.

The Occupy movement, in my opinion, is about more than just economic reform. Obviously, a lot of people are frustrated that the list of demands seems somewhat nebulous. Part of it is that we haven't had a large demand for social reform in a long time, so a lot of different groups are trying to get their concerns tacked on. But I think many of the changes being asked for are quite popular and some will stick.

Something I would like to highlight is some of the police tactics that are being used to clear out parks of protesters.

A two-tour Iraq vet protesting in Oakland that was hit by either a rubber bullet or a tear gas canister is undergoing brain surgery today as a result. After he was hit, a riot cop ran up and through a flash bang into the crowd of people trying to provide him medical assistance. Dozens of people complained of police using rubber bullets, police called them liars until people started posting pictures of the bullets found in the park the next day.

Meanwhile the police union in Oakland is threatening to sue protestors who injure cops when not one cop was injured by a civilian (though the opposite was true), the people throwing stuff are a tiny minority, and cops have no legal way of suing individuals. Despite all of this, the DoJ has officially stated they won't even be looking into the matter. Most major news outlets didn’t even report the clash between police and protestors on their websites until thousands of people on Reddit and other social networks started a campaign to harass them about it.

Isn’t it fascinating that when riot cops in Egypt used tear gas and batons to clear out Tahrir Square our own government condemned it, but our protests (which have been more peaceful) bring no such attention despite tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons all having been used?

But enough about that.

What I’d ultimately like to see:

• Money being removed from politics.
• Corporate lobbying power diminished.
• An end to corporate personhood.
• Adjust average hourly earnings for inflation (hasn’t increased in 50 years).
• Better hiring incentives and significant consequences for firing workers while raising executive pay.
• Harsher punishments for white collar crime (with great power comes great responsibility, not impunity).
• Limits on executive bonuses, raises, and incomes.
• A complete audit of the Federal Reserve.
• Revelation of the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act and/or its abolishment.
• Legislative/Congressional reform (takes too long to pass important legislation).
• Demilitarization of America’s police forces.
• Sensible reforms to the drug war.

Good read about the financial side of concerns:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

[Professor S]

TML, you make some good points, but your solutions are the exact type of top-down, centrally controlled "reforms" that helped get us into the place we are in now.



What I’d ultimately like to see:

• Money being removed from politics.

How would you do this? Who pays for the campaigns, who decides who pays? Actually, in this age of free and available information I am very sympathetic to this idea, but a lot of thought needs to be put into it to avoid abuse and further corruption.

• Corporate lobbying power diminished.

Only corporate lobbying power? What about other large, powerful organizations that wield large amounts of lobbying power and influence? Should only corporations have their voice silenced?

• An end to corporate personhood.

Depends on what you mean by personhood. I would say that if we treat them like a person, we need to treat them no differently than we would an individual, meaning if we bail out a corporation we bail out individuals.

• Adjust average hourly earnings for inflation (hasn’t increased in 50 years).

So if we force companies to increase pay, what happens when these companies eliminate the position? Current minimum wage laws have already cost teens and the elderly thousands of jobs. Isn't a wage dictated by the market better than no wage at all?

• Better hiring incentives and significant consequences for firing workers while raising executive pay.

Why would a company hire someone they don't need regardless of incentives? A $5,000 tax credit doesn't even sniff at the cost of hiring a new employee.

• Harsher punishments for white collar crime (with great power comes great responsibility, not impunity).

Agreed, in principle.

• Limits on executive bonuses, raises, and incomes.

Why? Is their raise going to prevent new jobs that companies don't need?

• A complete audit of the Federal Reserve.

Agreed.

• Revelation of the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act and/or its abolishment.

Please explain the "secret interpretation" part.

• Legislative/Congressional reform (takes too long to pass important legislation).

How so? The devil is in the details.

• Demilitarization of America’s police forces.

Explain

• Sensible reforms to the drug war.

100% agreed.

[Bond]

What I’d ultimately like to see:

• Money being removed from politics.
• Corporate lobbying power diminished.
• An end to corporate personhood.
• Adjust average hourly earnings for inflation (hasn’t increased in 50 years).
• Better hiring incentives and significant consequences for firing workers while raising executive pay.
• Harsher punishments for white collar crime (with great power comes great responsibility, not impunity).
• Limits on executive bonuses, raises, and incomes.
• A complete audit of the Federal Reserve.
• Revelation of the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act and/or its abolishment.
• Legislative/Congressional reform (takes too long to pass important legislation).
• Demilitarization of America’s police forces.
• Sensible reforms to the drug war.

Good read about the financial side of concerns:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
Removing money from politics is an interesting suggestion ... it would certainly piss off the unions and major corporations ... other than that, I'm not sure what effect it would have on our current political system. It's worth noting that the consequential parts of McCain-Feingold were struck down by the Surpeme Court, so I'm not sure how far any of this reform would go.

What do you mean by adjusting the average hourly wage for inflation? Do you mean adjusting the minimum wage? The average hourly wage has increased over the past decades if you reference the chart I posted above. The increases are measured in real terms as well, so that nullifies inflation.

[Professor S]

<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.11NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMjAyMzg1OTI4NjAmcHQ9MTMyMDIzODU5NTQzNCZwPSZkPSZnPTImbz1jNjJiY2NmNTJlNDI*N2Y5YTYwZDJhOTUx/NmEyNjhjNyZvZj*w.gif" /><object name="kaltura_player_1320238147" id="kaltura_player_1320238147" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowFullScreen="true" height="363" width="550" data="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_jpe1107o/uiconf_id/4899061"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="movie" value="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_jpe1107o/uiconf_id/4899061"/><param name="flashVars" value=""/><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com">video platform</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_management">video management</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/solutions/video_solution">video solutions</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_publishing">video player</a></object>

[Fox 6]

The occupy protester camp in Vancouver reportedly has a bad rat infestation. Also its getting a lot colder out now and wet too. Maybe that'll teach them to occupy a job instead :D

[Typhoid]

The occupy protester camp in Vancouver reportedly has a bad rat infestation


Good. They don't have a reason to be there anyways. We're not in the US. I hope those idiots freeze.


Personally, i think all of these Occupy Wall Street douchebags should occupy a library, and read up on how to actually stir social and political change, rather than being smelly, obnoxious jobless weirdos. Get educated, get a plan, take proper steps.

And on the other hand, the business owners getting all "well maybe I'll just close my business down and then fire 150 people. Let's see what that does." Very fucking mature, rich Dempublicrats. "If you raise my taxes, I'll quit!".

That is the new American way. Fuck all that "American ingenuity and stick-to-it-ivness". Now it's good 'ol fashioned "American taking your ball and going home."

[Professor S]

And on the other hand, the business owners getting all "well maybe I'll just close my business down and then fire 150 people. Let's see what that does." Very fucking mature, rich Dempublicrats. "If you raise my taxes, I'll quit!".

That is the new American way. Fuck all that "American ingenuity and stick-to-it-ivness". Now it's good 'ol fashioned "American taking your ball and going home."

At least you're always fair when talking about America :unsure:

Businesses look at every expenditure as a cost. Taxes are simply another line item that needs to be accounted for. If you raise taxes on a business they are left with only a few ways to make up the loss:

1) Increase the cost of their product or service
2) Reduce profits to owners/investors
3) Reduce compensation to employees or reduce unneeded employment

The third option will always be preferred because 1 and 2 can be disastrous for a company (just ask NetFlix and Bank of America). Remove emotion from the equation. Businesses employ for one reason: They need the employee to maximize their profit potential. Any other reason is nonsensical and irrelevant because it is not based in reality.

So we're left with a simple choice: Govern out of anger, fear, and populist policies that do more damage to our economy... or work with reality and help job creators instead of attacking them publicly and through policy.

And for the record, Canada has a lower corporate tax rate than the US, and I believe they are looking to lower it further, but you'd know better than I.

[Typhoid]

Pre edit edit: In all seriousness, don't take me the wrong way. I'm just attempting to have a face-to-face conversation over text, not start some argument or derail a thread or anything.

At least you're always fair when talking about America


You take me far too seriously when I say ridiculous things, then don't take me seriously at all when I say things that should have worth and value. :lolz:

I seriously do think the Occupy _____ is a waste of time. If those people want change, educate themselves. Take proper steps, you know.

And for the record, Canada has a lower corporate tax rate than the US, and I believe they are looking to lower it further, but you'd know better than I.


What I simply meant was that the Occupy Vancouver/Toronto started because of Occupy Wall Street. What harms you doesn't [necessarily] directly effect us in the same way. This is why our dollar has gained on the US dollar, and surpassed it a number of times. Albeit by pennies, but still. If we were directly tied, our dollar would have stayed well-below the American dollar. Instead we've constantly been creeping up to parity, and [slightly] surpassing it.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that our countries are indeed symbiotic, at least on our end - however what disturbs me is that the people occupying areas in Canadian cities are seemingly oblivious to the fact that in the end, it might harm us as a country. We are not the US. It's fine and dandy that your people are fighting for social change and I'm all for that. Wealth should indeed be shared in a broader bracket. But my people shouldn't have to fight for your social change. All or nothing. If my people are going to Occupy Vancouver so that your people get their message heard louder, my people (hell, yours, too) should also have some riots going for Greece and all that euro bullshit. This is a joke. I do not think they should do that.

The reason we in Canada probably have/need a smaller corporate tax rate (I'm currently trying to find the rate itself) is because we have 1/10th the population, therefore we have (let's assume) 1/10th the corporations. Being that corporations do indeed actually create jobs with some form of wealth in a centralized location (A city, opposed to rural people with rural jobs), we want to entice more of them to come here. The way you do that is to lower taxes. And I can see them lowering it a little more in Canada, with the talk of raising American corprorate tax rates, because then some corporations will surely (I assume is the goal) come north and set up here, and hire Canadians.


I'm not going to break this down, but just because I was looking for it, just a little quip:

American: Federal tax rates on corporate taxable income vary from 15% to 35%.

The basic rate of Part I tax is 38% of your taxable income, 28% after federal tax abatement.

For Canadian-controlled private corporations claiming the small business deduction, the net tax rate is 11%.

For the other corporations, the net tax rate is decreased as follows:

19% effective January 1, 2009
18% effective January 1, 2010
16.5% effective January 1, 2011


Edit: After wikipedia-ing, I found this lovely string of hilarious things.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations in New York City based in Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street financial district. The protests were initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters.

The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment[1] organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia.

The foundation describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age."

[Professor S]

The reason we in Canada probably have/need a smaller corporate tax rate (I'm currently trying to find the rate itself) is because we have 1/10th the population, therefore we have (let's assume) 1/10th the corporations. Being that corporations do indeed actually create jobs with some form of wealth in a centralized location (A city, opposed to rural people with rural jobs), we want to entice more of them to come here. The way you do that is to lower taxes. And I can see them lowering it a little more in Canada, with the talk of raising American corprorate tax rates, because then some corporations will surely (I assume is the goal) come north and set up here, and hire Canadians.

So why does it make sense for Canada to lower taxes to attract jobs, but when American companies complain about high corporate taxes it's:

And on the other hand, the business owners getting all "well maybe I'll just close my business down and then fire 150 people. Let's see what that does." Very fucking mature, rich Dempublicrats. "If you raise my taxes, I'll quit!".

That is the new American way. Fuck all that "American ingenuity and stick-to-it-ivness". Now it's good 'ol fashioned "American taking your ball and going home."

Logically, it makes sense for Canada to have low taxes to attract businesses. Logically, it makes sense for America to lower taxes to attract businesses. I fail to see why what is good for the goose fails to be good for the gander.

[Typhoid]

So why does it make sense for Canada to lower taxes to attract jobs, but when American companies complain about high corporate taxes it's:


Like I said, when I'm joking you take me far too seriously, and when I'm not joking you don't take me seriously at all.

That whole "This is the new american way" thing was a joke. Stop focusing on that. I just found it disgusting that a small few American business owners have that mentality because it's such a childish way of thinking. Obviously I don't think every business owner is like that, nor that most people think that way. I'm not dumb, just bored.


Logically, it makes sense for Canada to have low taxes to attract businesses. Logically, it makes sense for America to lower taxes to attract businesses. I fail to see why what is good for the goose fails to be good for the gander.


I never said it didn't make sense for the US to have low taxes to attract jobs. That sort of speaks for itself. Low taxes attract whatever is taxed low. You brought up Canada having lower corporate taxes in comparison, so I was just stating my opinion on why I think Canadian corporate taxes are lower than the US'.
No matter what your tax is, it makes sense for ours to be lower in order to attract your jobs, because your jobs will not only employ our people, but they will also bring some of yours. I'm not saying that's not a schemey way of doing things; essentially trying to coax people over the border with high-paying jobs and international connections - but it just makes sense.
Even if your country removed all corporate tax, my country would probably start some rebate campaign for American business owners to bring their companies north. That was a joke. Although it probably would happen if that impossible scenario ever existed.


Besides, what you were trying to bring up doesn't even really make sense to me right now.
American business owners are complaining that Americans want to raise taxes on American businesses, and you're asking why I think it makes sense for Canada to lower corporate tax to steal away the pissed-off business owners [the ones who'd would fire 150 American jobs per company]? I don't understand what you were trying to probe me on, in your post. Honestly, I don't.

[Bond]

I'm a little confused as to where this is going, but the point that Canada has lower corporate tax rates than America (did not fact check that) to attract jobs analogy holds true for any country. Having a lower tax rate than a neighbor will always be looked at as a plus when businesses evaluate where to hire and build. There are other factors though as well, of course. The American dollar is the reserve currency of the world, even more so now after the financial collapse. That, is perhaps the single biggest advantage to doing business in the American dollar.

I would also say, perhaps somewhat provactively, that Canada is able to have a lower corproate tax rate because you have a lower defense budget and needs than we do (and in turn need to levy less revenue). You're probably going to say being our neighbor has its downsides, many of which I would agree with, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

[Typhoid]

You're probably going to say being our neighbor has its downsides, many of which I would agree with, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

I'm not arguing otherwise. In fact I pretty much agree 100%. Nothing that makes me think "Man, fuck those guys.", just as I'd think there's nothing about being South of Canada that makes Americans say "Man, Fuck those guys." There aren't many downsides other than cultural influence (But even then, who the fuck cares). But we even have laws to counteract American influence. (CanCon for example. Radio stations have to dedicate at least 30% of it's music to Canadian Musicians in everything they play.)

Don't get me wrong, I've never said I've had any qualms with living North of the US, nor am I really negative to the country itself, and rather the corruption that resides within it. But again, to be fair - I don't like corruption in general. it's not like when it happens in Canada I turn a blind eye to how much it disgusts me that people are capable of being so greedy; but we're just overflowing with your news channels. And it's much, much easier to critique another country than your own. ;P I'm well aware that my country is practically equally as bureaucratic and corrupt. Our leaders in Canada love their committees and paperwork.

Plus Your military means I don't need a big one. I enjoy that. It means we can spend our money on things like healthcare, and poor people. :lol:


But this has gotten way, way off-topic. My bad.

[Seth]

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kgvgHQMV6Mc&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kgvgHQMV6Mc&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>

[Fox 6]

So far there have been 2 over doses, which have resulted in 1 fatality at the Vancouver site. There was another confrontation where firemen went to put out an out-of-control barrel fire they were using for warmth, and were attacked. The police stepped in and 2 officers had to be taken to hospital with bite wounds.


I SHOOT HEROIN, BITE POLICE OFFICERS AND ATTACK FIREMEN, I AM THE 99%.

[Bond]

This image should find a happy home here:

http://files.brobible.com/archive/Buzz/historically-hardcore-1.jpg

[Dylflon]

Anyone paying attention to the crack-down against democracy going on today?

[Professor S]

Anyone paying attention to the crack-down against democracy going on today?

I empathize with many of the protesters, but squatting on public land does not equal democracy. To be honest, these people have made their point, but their continued nonsense is just another symptom of what they claim they rail against. Protesting is basically complaining on a large public scale. If you complain, you expect someone else to fix something for you, giving that entity more power to abuse you with their "altruistic" solutions.

[Typhoid]

Not that I'm really siding with the idiot-protesters, but how does one "Squat on public land"? It's public. They are the public. Technically they have every right to be in that public park.

The protesters blocking the roads and bridges and shit like that should smarten the fuck up, however. It's not a protest against infrastructure.


I still think they should smarten up, read some books, and propose some legitimate fucking ideas rather than saying "Lol, uhhh, change stuff in favour for us or we'll stay here in the cold weather."

[KillerGremlin]

I still see this as the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not saying today. Or tomorrow. Or next week. But the energy is just electric right now. I honestly do not see the protesting going away.

[Professor S]

Not that I'm really siding with the idiot-protesters, but how does one "Squat on public land"? It's public. They are the public. Technically they have every right to be in that public park.

They absolutely have a right to be in that park, as long as they follow rules and laws regarding its use, and they are NOT. Homeless people are not allowed to squat and public land, so why should we let another bum do the same thing because they happen to have an iPhone and simplistic message?

Just because land is public doesn't mean that I get to do whatever the fuck I want with it. In most cases these parks have hours of operation, and laws regarding their use, in order to protect the public lands for EVERYONE and not just the "99%". These public areas have been defecated on, littered on, and numerous other laws have been broken. So far law enforcement has been LENIENT and allowed these laws to be broken to avoid confrontation. At some point enough is enough.

[Bond]

I just wanted to add that Zuccotti Park in NYC, where the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd is hanging out, is actually not public land. Brookfield Properties (a private company) owns the park, but has an agreement with the city of New York to operate it as a "privately owned public space."

So, without the evil corporate slobs at Brookfield Properties, there would be nowhere to protest... hmm...

[Typhoid]

I just wanted to add that Zuccotti Park in NYC, where the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd is hanging out, is actually not public land. Brookfield Properties (a private company) owns the park, but has an agreement with the city of New York to operate it as a "privately owned public space."

Then they should definitely get the fuck out of there. They're trespassing. Charge 'em all. (That sounds like sarcasm but it's not.)


At some point enough is enough.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Dylflon]

Regardless of whether or not anyone is concerned about the classification of the outdoor spaces currently or previously being occupied, I was more concerned with the violent dispersing of protesters rather than the fact that they were being dispersed. (And I was also perturbed by the news that NYC police would deny access to an area of the city unless you had corporate documentation proving that you work on wall street.)

Acts like taking billy clubs to the stomachs of Berkley students or indiscriminately pepper spraying crowds in Seattle show that the police is more about protecting corporate interests than protecting the first amendment rights of the citizens they're supposedly sworn to protect.


I view this movement as a positive thing. People like to complain that they don't have a concise objective, but reaching consensus among a giant and diverse group of people is never going to be a simple task. The movement is the first step in a process that would hopefully lead to some kind of change. The movement can't create a new system for society or anything, but at least people are voicing the fact that they're not happy. And if nobody stands up and does this, the conversation in the political realm will never change.

However, violently breaking up demonstrations is only going to cause things to escalate in a very negative way.

[KillerGremlin]

What!? Damn kids need to get off my lawn!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WmJmmnMkuEM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I fear it is going to get violent from the protestor side based on how quickly and frequently the police have been trying to deescalate these protests with violence.

If someone pepper sprayed Rosa Parks for not giving her seat up on the bus....

[Professor S]

Here is a question: People are unlawfully occupying as space, and repeatedly asked to leave. They refuse to leave, and make it a point to do things to resist being removed (such as linking arms, making human walls, etc.).

How do you remove them without some form of violence (dragging someone away against their will is a form of violence)?

[KillerGremlin]

Here is a question: People are unlawfully occupying as space, and repeatedly asked to leave. They refuse to leave, and make it a point to do things to resist being removed (such as linking arms, making human walls, etc.).

How do you remove them without some form of violence (dragging someone away against their will is a form of violence)?

You don't/can't. Which is why protesting is effective.

I think the protesting at the University is somewhat unique. It seems that the University decided to call in the authorities. I doubt the protestors where actually obstructing physical space; I mean walk around them, cripes. But I don't doubt that the protestors were a distraction.

At the end of the day a University is private property and so the police can show up and try to remove the protestors. If the protestors refuse to move and act as dead weight...then the police will take the steps to remove them.

The gray area is "what steps are necessary?"

It doesn't change the fact that America has always celebrated the spirited right to free assembly and to free speech. I almost empathize more with the authorities in the above video than I do with the police removing protestors from New York City.

What is more American than New York City? New York City is the biggest stage in America. If there is a place to express free speech and your right to assembly, New York is the place.

Historically, there has always been "sanctioned" areas where people can protest...and not be seen or heard. That kind of defeats the purpose of protesting. Protesting is supposed to be aggressive, loud, and problematic.

When you saw videos of Civil Rights protestors being sprayed with fire houses and being beat by police...you felt passion and rage. Passion and rage leads to mob beatings, and again, I ask:

If the police continue to deescalate the situation with violence, how long will it be before the protestors mob the police?


So it seems to me that the real question isn't "what can the police do?" The real question is, "what can we do to stop the protestors?"

[Jason1]

That pepper spraying was TOTALLY over the line and completly uncalled for. Pepper spraying a bunch of college students who are just sitting there defenseless? Rediculous. Its a bunch of kids for gods sake, doing nothing wrong. They werent tipping cars or starting fires. Just sitting there. The more I think about it the angrier I get.

Where does it go from here? Kent State? This is America. I hope those police, and whoever higher up than them that authorized them to use pepper spray, are fired immediatley. I also hope they pursure legal action against them.

[Dylflon]

Here is a question: People are unlawfully occupying as space, and repeatedly asked to leave. They refuse to leave, and make it a point to do things to resist being removed (such as linking arms, making human walls, etc.).

How do you remove them without some form of violence (dragging someone away against their will is a form of violence)?

Guys, seriously. If there's a bunch of no-good poor people hanging out outside on this planet Earth in an area that I say is mine, and they won't leave when I want them to, and I don't like what they're saying:

How do I get them to shut up without punching their throats?

[Professor S]

Guys, seriously. If there's a bunch of no-good poor people hanging out outside on this planet Earth in an area that I say is mine, and they won't leave when I want them to, and I don't like what they're saying:

How do I get them to shut up without punching their throats?

Yes, because what I wrote and what you wrote are EXACTLY the same. :unsure:

The question still stands (as I wrote it) and I have yet to hear a good answer, and I don't think pepper spray and billy clubs is a good answer either, but people aren't allowed to do whatever they want simply because they aren't violent. Laws are laws, and if they would simply not squat on the property there probably wouldn't be an issue. In the end, the protesters have to understand they are inviting pepper spray by refusing all other options given to them by those trying to enforce the law. And the pepper spray was likely used because it doesn't cause permanent damage, and it incapacitates you (I know from experience). In the end, it was used to avoid unnecessary violence and injury.

This episode just goes to show that in the end all laws are enforced at the end of a gun.

[KillerGremlin]

You could argue that human interests/rights supersede laws.

And, apparently pepper spray crossed the moral line this time because UC Davis is in an uproar. The police officers who used the pepper spray are on "administrative leave.*" The UC Davis chancellor apologized for the pepper spray...but now professors are speaking out and there are additional protesters. Students are pissed and feel unsafe on campus. Professors were saying that the protesters weren't blocking anything, and you could walk around them.

They were protesting tuition raises I guess. If no one pays for tuition, how is the University going to stay afloat? I think payers of tuition should have the right to protest. There are worker strikes and unions over unjust treatment.

At any rate, it doesn't look so good for the University, which is now on the national stage. Their students, who pay for the University, were pretty maliciously pepper-sprayed. And now the actual Professors who make up the University are speaking out? Sucks to be UC Davis.

*administrative leave is such bullshit....we could have a whole thread on how cops suck.

But back to this point:
You could argue that human interests/rights supersede laws.

This is the rabbit hole.

[Dylflon]

The problem is that public property is the only good place to protest if you would like anyone to pay attention to you.

If you are asking them to protest in private then you are neutering their statement and frankly the very concept of protest.

What the hell do you care that they're protesting on public property anyways?

[Professor S]

You could argue that human interests/rights supersede laws.

You could, but I completely disagree for various reasons.

1) No one has the human right to occupy someone else's property, and conversely people do have the right to protect their property and the government has the right to guarantee others the right to use public property and protect it from damage.

2) We are a nation of laws, not people, but our laws (should) reflect the will of the people. If our nations only serves people and ignores laws that are created by their representatives, then what we have is mob rule/anarchy.

The minute that we lose the ability to choose our own government, I agree with you, but until then we have to let laws prevail.

Back on topic, it occurs to me that the protesters WANT these public confrontations. I actually think the best way to deal with the situation is to kill them with kindness. Schools and cities should provide corporate based sanitation, corporate based porto-potties, lunches from McDonalds and SubWay, Verizon Wireless wifi, etc. It won't be long before people are get bored with the lack of conflict or are shamed into leaving. That and winter is coming.

[Professor S]

What the hell do you care that they're protesting on public property anyways?

I wouldn't if they weren't destroying many of the public spaces through littering, vandalism, defecation/urination. The public areas aren't just for them. I also have an issue with camping out. There is a thin line between protester and vagrant once the bubble tent pops out.

Long story short - If the protesters kept to public property, went home every night, and cleaned up after themselves I think they should be allowed to do it as long as they like. That is their right. My issue is that they are flagrantly violating laws in order to create confrontation for public spectacle.

[Seth]

An article about the start of these OWS protests. Reaffirms something I've assumed about adbusters for a few years. The counter voice is villified(and repainted) through a distorted media lens, and nothing is solved, except driving the still-employed public towards the antithesis of bandana clad curseries. What if we all took a page from Thoreau and refused to pay for these 'wars' that are openly in violation of human rights? Our defense minister recently announced that Canada is going forward with the F-35 program, despite budget shortfalls, which should be worked around minimizing the damage to public supports instead of reaffirming allegiance to NATO atrocities repainted as humanitarian bombings.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27708

[Bond]

Okay, I think we all agree these people have a right to protest (in public places) for a period of time. The question is do you allow the protests to naturally die down (we all know they eventually will), or do the police eventually step in and break up the protests? If the police do step in, how long should they wait to step in, and what means are appropriate for the police to use? If the protesters throw rocks are the police allowed or not allowed to use pepper spray? And this could go on and on ... it's just one giant cluster fuck if you ask me.

More importantly, I really don't think these protests are effective at all - they're just preaching to the choir.

[Typhoid]

While I don't really agree with protesting after a certain point; at some point you've got to get educated and make logical points rather than just sleeping in a tent.


Anyhow, I'm all for any protest if the protesters want to waste as much time as they desire as long as they: Don't impede people from going to/from work, don't stop safety services from providing safety, don't impede roads/bridges; that type of thing.

If they (any protest) start doing any of those (other than get violent/loot etc), I say get 'em the fuck out of there. Fine them all. hand each and every one of them their own ticket. If they rip up the ticket in defiance, arrest them for doing so.

But if real people want to waste their own goddamn time sitting in the cold rain for something they think is a good idea, fuck it - let them be cold, and wet sitting in some dingy park for months at a time.

But if they start breaking the law, shitting in public, loitering in stores, theft etc, bring the fucking law down on them hard. Breaking the law is one thing, but breaking the law in public while under the guise of standing up for 'the people' is sort of retarded, to me.


The thing is, I don't believe these occupy wallstreet douches want 'change'. It seems to me they want to be there long enough so force will have to be used to remove them, because then that will look bad on the government. They seemed to apparently wait for something like a line of students or an old lady to get peppersprayed, so they can stand up, throw their arms in the air and scream cruelty.


When I refer to "They", I don't mean the people in New York at Occupy Wallstreet. I mean everyone else. The 19 - late20somethings who are lazy douches who want to feel like they're a part of their own personal 60's flower power revolution. It's a fucking joke.

[Bond]

The thing is, I don't believe these occupy wallstreet douches want 'change'. It seems to me they want to be there long enough so force will have to be used to remove them, because then that will look bad on the government. They seemed to apparently wait for something like a line of students or an old lady to get peppersprayed, so they can stand up, throw their arms in the air and scream cruelty.
I don't think this is actually that far from the truth. Earlier this year I was in Madison for the union protests over the collective bargaining bill (this probably didn't receive media attention in Canada, but it was all over the local and national news here). Anyway, the protests peaked at around 100,000+ people per day, a fairly impressive number for a city with only 300,000 or so residents. But, observing the protests first-hand, it was fairly apparent to me that people get wrapped up in the "idea" of protesting, and often lose sight of the original cause. In other words, a lot of these protests just carry on because (1) it gives people something to do and allows them to live in a "fantasy world" for a period of time and (2) people enjoy the positive feedback loop you receive by protesting with like-minded citizens.

[KillerGremlin]

My biggest concern is in line with Seth's, that the protesting will be picked up by the Democrats or Obama and spun as some counter against someone else.

For what it is worth, Congress just hit an all-time low approval rating of 9%.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/awXdkKgF3Qw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Congress is in the process of discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act...another act in line with the Patriot Act intended to strip Americans of basic rights.

People continue to not have jobs. Education continues to slip. Politicians continue to ignore the real health care issue: why is medicine so expensive? Why are health costs so expensive? Attacking the pharmaceutical companies isn't advantageous for politicians who receive huge kickbacks from Pharmaceutical companies.

Why does it take almost a billion dollars to run a campaign for presidency these days?

Why is it a trail of money and not a trail of intelligence, education, and science?

Why does Congress get to even vote on the SOPA bill? It's a bunch of old folks who are too old and decrepit to actually understand how the Internet works.

Why are there weekly postings of Police Officers or Judges or Elected Officials clearly abusing their powers posted on social media sites like Youtube?

There is this really good article by Mike Lofgren that you should all read:

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.


For what it's worth, the article touches on some important problems with the Political Machine in this country.

There are no easy solutions. It will get worse before it gets better. The protesting is just feelings of angst being expressed outwardly. The retaliation by the police is strange considering they are public servants of the people.


I mean there are a lot of big problems right now. Big issues. So there are a lot of reasons for people to be furious. I'm honestly surprised there hasn't been more protesting and more anger.

[Dylflon]

Okay, I think we all agree these people have a right to protest (in public places) for a period of time. The question is do you allow the protests to naturally die down (we all know they eventually will), or do the police eventually step in and break up the protests? If the police do step in, how long should they wait to step in, and what means are appropriate for the police to use? If the protesters throw rocks are the police allowed or not allowed to use pepper spray? And this could go on and on ... it's just one giant cluster fuck if you ask me.

More importantly, I really don't think these protests are effective at all - they're just preaching to the choir.

Yep...time limit on free speech.



Why is everybody crying about corporation's private property? Is no one aware that if nobody stands up and complains, nothing will ever change.

One of the biggest complaints is that the protestors don't have a concise message or vision. Well guess what: neither do most legislative bodies. If you can barely get congress to agree to not let your country default, how do you expect a bunch of random angry people to reach an easy to understand consensus?

I get annoyed that everyone just shits on protestors based on where they themselves shit. In a lot of interview footage, you see that many protestors have a very clear idea of what they're upset about and what they wish was different. There are some rather eloquent points that are being made but people tune this out because they're invading corporate space or because some homeless people get in the mix. You know how to make it so homeless people don't start hanging out with people on the streets? Attempt to do something to resolve the homeless problem.

The fact is that things are pretty fucked up right now, and law makers pretty much only pass laws that protect the rich. So fuck the argument about a nation of laws before a nation of people. That's lunacy, a logical fallacy of retarded proportions. How can the rights of people not be first? We've seen that the police are more concerned with how to get protestors to shut up and go away than they are to protect first amendment rights.

But you guys are right. These protests can't accomplish anything. Politicians aren't listening. Politicians don't care. The only hope the occupy movement has is if this turns into a general strike at which point things will get a whole lot more disruptive.

Or hell, let's all just stop the protesting right now. Let's just trust that politicians who are owned by lobbyists will put the needs of the people first and fix the spiral that we're headed for.

I expect this shit from The Professor, but I'm disappointed with some of the rest of you.

[Professor S]

Why is everybody crying about corporation's private property?

The problem with your view on "laws", if I can call it a view, is that you believe you can pick and choose who they apply to. If property rights laws are broken for a corporation, then they are broken for EVERYONE. This is the difference between having laws that protects people and a nation of "laws" that are enforced on a case by case basis. This is also called "tyranny". But I get the 'impression that you wouldn't mind tyranny as long as those who oppress do so from your point of view. Very short-sighted.

One of the biggest complaints is that the protestors don't have a concise message or vision. Well guess what: neither do most legislative bodies. If you can barely get congress to agree to not let your country default, how do you expect a bunch of random angry people to reach an easy to understand consensus?

The focus of their complaints has nothing to do with their right to complain. My biggest compaint is that they are destroying private and public property.

I get annoyed that everyone just shits on protestors based on where they themselves shit.

Well, let's put a few hundred vagrants in front of your home 24/7, piling up garbage and human waste, and then see how you feel.

In a lot of interview footage, you see that many protestors have a very clear idea of what they're upset about and what they wish was different. There are some rather eloquent points that are being made but people tune this out because they're invading corporate space or because some homeless people get in the mix. You know how to make it so homeless people don't start hanging out with people on the streets? Attempt to do something to resolve the homeless problem.

I agree many make good points, and I agree with many of their complaints about the involvement of corporations in government, but the distractions you mention are of their own creation. By choosing to "occupy" rather than protest on a daily basis they have made the conversation about all of the problems we have mentioned in this thread. In fact, a large portion of their time seems to be spent on organizing ways to legally remain on public property, and not on their message.

The fact is that things are pretty fucked up right now, and law makers pretty much only pass laws that protect the rich. So fuck the argument about a nation of laws before a nation of people. That's lunacy, a logical fallacy of retarded proportions. How can the rights of people not be first?

You seem to confuse an individual's "rights" with "whatever the fuck I want to do as long as I think my goals are just". Laws exist to protect people's rights. Remove laws, rights cease to exist, such as property rights. You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to express it on my front lawn.

You mention a logical fallacy of recognizing laws in today's environement, but you fail to follow your own argument down the rabbit hole. If laws don't mean anything, then obviously voting doesn't mean anything, and if voting doesn't mean anything then the only step left is revolution. This is your argument in a country that still maintains one of the highest standards of living in ther world and dwarfs the world in terms of wealth and production. Our impoverished people live like kings compared to many other countries. Are things perfect, or even good (compared to our standards)? No, there needs to be change if America is going maintain at its current level or grow. But I'm not sure Che needs to be resurrected quite yet.

I expect this shit from The Professor, but I'm disappointed with some of the rest of you.

Dyflon, you make political decisions based solely on outrage. That is your choice, but don't always expect everyone to agree with it.

[Dylflon]

The problem with your view on "laws", if I can call it a view, is that you believe you can pick and choose who they apply to. If property rights laws are broken for a corporation, then they are broken for EVERYONE. This is the difference between having laws that protects people and a nation of "laws" that are enforced on a case by case basis. This is also called "tyranny". But I get the 'impression that you wouldn't mind tyranny as long as those who oppress do so from your point of view. Very short-sighted.

I guess since I argued rather angrily it's easy to say that I feel you can suspend any law you want if the ends justify the means.

This is not how I feel.

However not every law is constructed in a way to facilitate democracy. Take for instance the situation that some workers find themselves in where they have to occupy their work space in order protest to maintain worker's rights or to receive money they are owed when a company is shutting down. To ask them to leave and protest in a public park will ensure that their message remains ignored.

The thing about "free-speech zones" is that they are always where someone doesn't have to pay attention to you.

So yes, in some cases I will be willing to concede that I take little issue with laws about private space (concerning commercial areas, not a random person's home as you imply later in your post) when the issues at stake are about the basic rights and freedoms of a population being put second to the interests of corporations and financial institutions.

To imply that I support tyranny is a very childish jump in logic and a very weak way to try and invalidate my opinion.

The focus of their complaints has nothing to do with their right to complain. My biggest compaint is that they are destroying private and public property.

Well, let's put a few hundred vagrants in front of your home 24/7, piling up garbage and human waste, and then see how you feel.

They're occupying the space where those responsible for the destruction of thousands of lives reside. This is of course specific to OWS, and not people in other cities who are camping out at their own financial sectors which are also part of the broken system. Really, they should be camping outside government buildings.

I don't shed a tear for the mound of human feces on corporate property. Call me cold hearted I guess. But to argue my point by saying how would I like it if people were outside my home is equating corporations to people who can have their feelings hurt or their lives disrupted. That kind of argument is exactly the problem. Don't imply that corporations have homes or feel feelings.

Also, ask yourself why there are "vagrants" in the first place that have the time to occupy any place for an extended period of time. It's not because they're lazy, many are victims of a broken system.



I agree many make good points, and I agree with many of their complaints about the involvement of corporations in government, but the distractions you mention are of their own creation. By choosing to "occupy" rather than protest on a daily basis they have made the conversation about all of the problems we have mentioned in this thread.

Point taken on this matter. But most protesters who have homes to go back to will do so at night. A lot of people who camp out don't have a place to go.

In fact, a large portion of their time seems to be spent on organizing ways to legally remain on public property, and not on their message.
And people in power spend more time trying to convince everyone that protesters are lunatics or criminals than they do listening to what they have to say.


You seem to confuse an individual's "rights" with "whatever the fuck I want to do as long as I think my goals are just". Laws exist to protect people's rights. Remove laws, rights cease to exist, such as property rights. You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to express it on my front lawn.

You're once again blowing what I feel out of proportion. I am not arguing for the suspension of all laws. You only get to bend the laws if you're rich, I know. If they're poor or oppressed, you need laws to protect everyone else from their tent city in Zucotti Park.

Nobody is protesting on your lawn or the lawn of ordinary individuals. Come off it.

Furthermore, we're talking about non-violent demonstration. It's sad that you hold more value in the property rights of corporate outdoor space than you do in people who fight for equality which is one of the democratic principles your country was founded on (correct me if I'm wrong).

You mention a logical fallacy of recognizing laws in today's environement, but you fail to follow your own argument down the rabbit hole. If laws don't mean anything, then obviously voting doesn't mean anything, and if voting doesn't mean anything then the only step left is revolution. This is your argument in a country that still maintains one of the highest standards of living in ther world and dwarfs the world in terms of wealth and production. Our impoverished people live like kings compared to many other countries. Are things perfect, or even good (compared to our standards)? No, there needs to be change if America is going maintain at its current level or grow. But I'm not sure Che needs to be resurrected quite yet.

Where the logical fallacy lies is saying laws before people because laws protect people. When you say that, you say that the laws as they are have to be upheld no matter what. This fails to account for humanity and the need to sometimes protect them from laws that are wrong.

When you put people first in the equation, then laws are thought of as in place to protect people in a way where they can be adjusted to better protect rights and freedom. That's why I say that "nation of laws before nation of people" is retarded.

It's the most backwards way to look at it. If people aren't first in the equation even semantically then what is the point?

You saying that I think voting is irrelevant is annoying because in no way is that what I imply. Frankly, it's an asshole argument to assume I think that (although sadly since so many politicians are owned it does make the process feel hollow at times).

I'm not saying that Americans have it the worst but you do have a broken system that is so out of control that when it fails due to greed and corruption, it drags the rest of the world with it. The heart of the argument is that corporate rights come before people's rights in your country and my country and much of the developed world.

Don't ever for a second think that I don't have faith in our ability to act as a society through democratic process. However I don't have faith in what the system has become and sometimes people who feel the same way will occupy a wall street park so that they can force people to hear them be angry about it. In the end, I'm willing to not care if the financial institution that brought your country to its knees has people camped out in their concrete park.



Dyflon, you make political decisions based solely on outrage. That is your choice, but don't always expect everyone to agree with it.

If I sound outraged it's because I am. However, go right to hell if you think you can discredit an opinion because I'm pissed off. My "political decisions" come from hours of thinking about these problems and talking about them with others. I don't feel these things in a knee jerk way.

I don't expect people to agree with me, but I expect those I argue with to be above putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

[Typhoid]

I know you're going to say I'm disagreeing with you for the sake of it, but I'm not - [really, I'm not even disagreeing with you] While I'm down with the message of spreading wealth, corporations not being people etc, I don't like the idiocy behind OCW. I don't like how other idiots started disrupting their communities as well, especially if their community is in another country which is undoubtedly not part of "The American 99%".


I don't shed a tear for the mound of human feces on corporate property.


The problem (in this sense) is that some of the ralliers just flat out don't give a shit about what they do and where they do it. So 'mom and pop' shops everywhere are being torn apart because pseudo-anarchists who want to feel like part of something bigger are getting caught up in the framework of someone elses message. Have you ever heard of the phrase "You're only as strong as your weakest link?"


That's why I say that "nation of laws before nation of people" is retarded.

I agree. But I believe this is because we're Canadain. We live in a country of people before laws. Our country betters it's laws to protect it's people. Preserve the people. American law betters it's law to better America. Preserve the country.

But the thing is the people are definitely breaking laws. And I know you said "Whats the point of having laws if they dont protect the people" - but what about the people who are being disrupted by the Occupy movement? The thing is, since the occupy movement people are opposing the government (more or less), the laws cease to be on their side, and then begins to solely be on the side of the residents in the communities that the occupy movement people are in. THAT is why they have to get out. The law IS protecting the people. Just as those people have the right to be wherever-they-are, the people in those communities (the people who pay for those homes, apartments, stores, have jobs outside the movements) have just as much right to carry on with their life being entirely disrupted. And since both groups (protesters and people in the communities) are all people, and all equally protected by the law, the thing that tips the scale to one side is that one group of people is not shouting while shitting on a street/in a store.

By no means am I saying our country doesn't try fuck us over when it gets the chance. Our leaders are just nicer about it. They'll at least lube up and give us a call a few days later to make sure we're okay. Maybe send over a muffin basket or something.

[Dylflon]

Okay, yeah I'll admit maybe I idealize the movement based on what it stands for and not on how they're doing it.

It's a tough line to walk because I do believe that these protests need to be as public and "in your face" as possible for anyone to pay attention. But it's also not good to turn people against you.


They need to do a fundraiser for some portapotties maybe.

[Professor S]

1) Dyflon, thank you for providing a more reasoned argument.

2) This entire "people before laws" argument makes zero sense, especially when you defend it by saying Canadian laws exist to protect people. If that is the case the Canada puts laws before people, because the laws protect the people.

"Laws before people" isn't a statement that denies people rights, it maintains them from the power of the mob which is ruled by emotions and not reason.

[Dylflon]

1) Dyflon, thank you for providing a more reasoned argument.

2) This entire "people before laws" argument makes zero sense, especially when you defend it by saying Canadian laws exist to protect people. If that is the case the Canada puts laws before people, because the laws protect the people.

"Laws before people" isn't a statement that denies people rights, it maintains them from the power of the mob which is ruled by emotions and not reason.

The ideological notion of people before laws doesn't strip away laws.

I believe that the number one standard that a country should be held to is the extent to which its citizens can live their lives with dignity. Right now, with growing unemployment and a focus on maintaining corporate tax breaks at the cost of stripping away social programs, the emphasis is definitely not on dignity. Your common citizen is living in a climate where they can be forced out of their homes and have nothing to fall back on because the free market gets to pick winners and losers.

The idea of laws before people (semantically) puts the emphasis on preserving laws as written as if that is always what is best forever.

I believe that laws as they are upheld are not always in the interest of the general public. Therefore, as a country, you would have to be flexible on changing the laws to suit the needs of the public. This is what I mean about people before laws. Laws should exist and change to protect the well-being of your citizens rather than citizens have to conform to what the laws are no matter what.

I feel the idea of the emphasis on laws over the people they are supposed to protect is a very inflexible way to look at society and therefore not useful in maintaining the dignity of your citizens. Whereas when you put people first in the equation (even semantically), the ideological notion becomes that society conforms around preserving the dignity of your citizens even if it requires adaptations to your laws.

[Bond]

So yes, in some cases I will be willing to concede that I take little issue with laws about private space (concerning commercial areas, not a random person's home as you imply later in your post) when the issues at stake are about the basic rights and freedoms of a population being put second to the interests of corporations and financial institutions.

To imply that I support tyranny is a very childish jump in logic and a very weak way to try and invalidate my opinion.
So, the scenario you support begs two questions: who decides when it is acceptable to overrule laws? Who decides the definition of "basic rights and freedoms of a population?"

They're occupying the space where those responsible for the destruction of thousands of lives reside.
Please explain.

And people in power spend more time trying to convince everyone that protesters are lunatics or criminals than they do listening to what they have to say.
What are they saying? It seems as though we've agreed that the protesters do not have a concise or clear message, so how is one supposed to discern what they are saying in a coherent fashion?

[Dylflon]

So, the scenario you support begs two questions: who decides when it is acceptable to overrule laws? Who decides the definition of "basic rights and freedoms of a population?"

I didn't say anyone was overruling a law. But in cases of civil disobedience groups will ignore some laws. I'm not saying a mob should be able to kill people or rape or commit fraud or anything. But the police force has to decide if property rights for multi-billion dollar companies are more relevant than a group's desire to protest in that space.

And asking me who defines basic rights and freedoms isn't directly related to my argument. Explain to me what you're getting at so I can respond to the question.


Please explain.

Would you like me to summarize the events of the recent stock market crash wherein those who worked for financial institutions bundled and sold people's debts and then bet against those people's ability to pay back those debts based on confusing mortgage terms buyers were duped into? If I've gotten any details wrong please correct me, but I'm pretty sure Wall Street is directly linked to the financial and housing collapse with correlates to thousands of families losing their homes.


What are they saying? It seems as though we've agreed that the protesters do not have a concise or clear message, so how is one supposed to discern what they are saying in a coherent fashion?

I've always understood that the easiest way to listen is by listening. I'm not suggesting that the protest movement can at this point deliver a concise message but there's been more than enough opportunity for protestors to voice many concerns through the media. Valid points I might add.

They're trying to change the discussion in politics, but that's not happening at all. Nobody's listening.

You're the person who confused me the most, Andrew. From what I know about you, you seem to me like the kind of person who would at least recognize politician's needs to talk about some of the issues the protestors bring up (like perhaps the expanded role money and corporations play in politics). Because I find you to reasonable. However, I'm concerned that you feel they have nothing relevant to say and should just go away. You never struck me as the kind of guy who would support such marginalization. I really hope I'm completely off base with how you feel.


Edit: I phrased that last bit wrong. It's unfair for me to assume your position on the politicians and I see in this thread that you agree with some things I say. But my concern remains that you don't find the protestors worth listening to.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm very much enjoying this discussion, so I'm merely dropping in some random facts/thoughts/tangents as a partial observer. I don't want to break up this discussion, but there's some stuff worth thinking about below.


Examples of laws/policy that have failed because the law came before human rights:

-Prohibition and the War on Drugs, really
-Sex offender laws and statutory rape
-Anything slavery and civil rights, duh

Examples of current laws that undermine basic Constitutional Rights:

-namely the Patriot Act and all the warrant-less wiretapping.
-a number of people have been arrested/detained without the fair right to a trial, which is also supposed to be protected by the Constitution
-you could argue that the TSA impedes certain rights, but flying is a private industry and flying isn't a right, it's a privilege; so gray area

The US Prison population, which far exceeds everyone else, is padded by silly drug laws and laws that really don't consider the basic rights of humans:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison. (That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China's extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)

San Marino, with a population of about 30,000, is at the end of the long list of 218 countries compiled by the center. It has a single prisoner.

The United States comes in first, too, on a more meaningful list from the prison studies center, the one ranked in order of the incarceration rates. It has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)

The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England's rate is 151; Germany's is 88; and Japan's is 63.

The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

There is little question that the high incarceration rate here has helped drive down crime, though there is debate about how much.

Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America's extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges — many of whom are elected, another American anomaly — yield to populist demands for tough justice.

Whatever the reason, the gap between American justice and that of the rest of the world is enormous and growing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all

These are mostly social issues, I'm less familiar with the financial sectors. The current SOPA act is on par with the Patriot Act, only for your Internet. If SOPA passes, for all we know this very forum could be blacklisted. America will be the next China. Many of the pro-SOPA folks are getting big kickbacks and funding from the RIAA and other large corporations.

I don't think we need to argue that the RIAA is more interested in money than anyone's rights.

At any rate, no one has really touched on why corporations are allowed to lobby, why running for President costs almost a billion dollars, or things like that. I'm curious what everyone thinks.

Relative to the rest of the world, I'm pretty sure the US spends waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more on campaigning. And I'm 100% okay with politicians being required to publicly air out who they get money from. You oppose healthcare for everyone, do you? Oh, you're getting a couple million dollars from Big Pharma every year! Well, fuck you!

[Bond]

I didn't say anyone was overruling a law. But in cases of civil disobedience groups will ignore some laws. I'm not saying a mob should be able to kill people or rape or commit fraud or anything. But the police force has to decide if property rights for multi-billion dollar companies are more relevant than a group's desire to protest in that space.

And asking me who defines basic rights and freedoms isn't directly related to my argument. Explain to me what you're getting at so I can respond to the question.
I was trying to show that alleviating some laws because some people think it is right to do so is a slippery slope. The reason why Professor alluded to tyranny is because history is riddled with examples where this happens (often with original good intentions). I agree the prospect of the United States falling into tyranny is basically zero, but it is an important historical point that we shouldn't forget.

I also was trying to understand the crux of what you're saying. These discussions tend to get rather confusing and difficult to follow, so I only wanted to focus on a few points.

Would you like me to summarize the events of the recent stock market crash wherein those who worked for financial institutions bundled and sold people's debts and then bet against those people's ability to pay back those debts based on confusing mortgage terms buyers were duped into? If I've gotten any details wrong please correct me, but I'm pretty sure Wall Street is directly linked to the financial and housing collapse with correlates to thousands of families losing their homes.
I would generally agree with that, but I would add the caveat that I think the government is also culpable in addition to Wall Street, and that just blaming "Wall Street" is probably an unfair generalization (it was more so likely the malicious intent of a few, and the ignorance of many). The core problem is that who was responsible and what exactly happened is extremely complicated (this is also why it happened in the first place). Loans that homeowners had no chance of paying back were treated as AAA bonds, and were then re-packaged, packaged again, even sometimes once more, into pools of mortgage loans (mortgage-backed securities). When you have so many financial layers of re-packaging (aka. a creative way of hiding what the underlying asset infact is, and its risk-level), things simply become way too complicated to understand what is truly going on any more. When you couple this with the fact that the majority of these securities resided in major commercial banks, you have an extremely dangerous consolidation risk.

I've always understood that the easiest way to listen is by listening. I'm not suggesting that the protest movement can at this point deliver a concise message but there's been more than enough opportunity for protestors to voice many concerns through the media. Valid points I might add.

They're trying to change the discussion in politics, but that's not happening at all. Nobody's listening.

You're the person who confused me the most, Andrew. From what I know about you, you seem to me like the kind of person who would at least recognize politician's needs to talk about some of the issues the protestors bring up (like perhaps the expanded role money and corporations play in politics). Because I find you to reasonable. However, I'm concerned that you feel they have nothing relevant to say and should just go away. You never struck me as the kind of guy who would support such marginalization. I really hope I'm completely off base with how you feel.


Edit: I phrased that last bit wrong. It's unfair for me to assume your position on the politicians and I see in this thread that you agree with some things I say. But my concern remains that you don't find the protestors worth listening to.
See, I think this is maybe the crux of what we're trying to talk about. I'm not disagreeing over the message of the movement (I agree that increasing inequality is a very serious and major systemic issue that needs to be dealt with), but the method of the movement -- I just don't think it's effective. The problem with these kinds of protests is that they rarely convert anyone. The protest eventually becomes more concerned and focused on the preservation of the protest over the actual message. This ends in the protest re-empowering itself and converting hardly anyone to its message.

[Dylflon]

I was trying to show that alleviating some laws because some people think it is right to do so is a slippery slope. The reason why Professor alluded to tyranny is because history is riddled with examples where this happens (often with original good intentions). I agree the prospect of the United States falling into tyranny is basically zero, but it is an important historical point that we shouldn't forget.

I also was trying to understand the crux of what you're saying. These discussions tend to get rather confusing and difficult to follow, so I only wanted to focus on a few points.

I just got annoyed by the tyranny bit because the invasion of corporate property by protesters couldn't lead to tyranny. It's only the circumvention of laws by the government that can do that.


I would generally agree with that, but I would add the caveat that I think the government is also culpable in addition to Wall Street, and that just blaming "Wall Street" is probably an unfair generalization (it was more so likely the malicious intent of a few, and the ignorance of many). The core problem is that who was responsible and what exactly happened is extremely complicated (this is also why it happened in the first place). Loans that homeowners had no chance of paying back were treated as AAA bonds, and were then re-packaged, packaged again, even sometimes once more, into pools of mortgage loans (mortgage-backed securities). When you have so many financial layers of re-packaging (aka. a creative way of hiding what the underlying asset infact is, and its risk-level), things simply become way too complicated to understand what is truly going on any more. When you couple this with the fact that the majority of these securities resided in major commercial banks, you have an extremely dangerous consolidation risk.

The government is responsible in that it deregulated the banks. While I believe that this was a horrifying and reckless mistake, more blame does fall to the financial institutions. The guy who gave the crazy person the gun is partially responsible; just not as responsible as the crazy guy who did the shooting.

However, I will agree that more focus should be put on the political system that allowed this to happen.


See, I think this is maybe the crux of what we're trying to talk about. I'm not disagreeing over the message of the movement (I agree that increasing inequality is a very serious and major systemic issue that needs to be dealt with), but the method of the movement -- I just don't think it's effective. The problem with these kinds of protests is that they rarely convert anyone. The protest eventually becomes more concerned and focused on the preservation of the protest over the actual message. This ends in the protest re-empowering itself and converting hardly anyone to its message.

When you have to go into survival mode to keep your protest from being disbanded, that should tell you a lot about the current situation.

People need to be publicly upset in a way that forces politicians to take notice. I think we know that it doesn't matter what party is in power. The system is broken in a way that we can't trust politicians to fix on their own. Especially since at the heart of the problem is the greed and short-sightedness of the very politicians we rely on to make things better.

[Typhoid]

Especially since at the heart of the problem is the greed and short-sightedness of the very politicians we rely on to make things better.


And you voted for....Obama, right? :ohreilly:

Sorry, I forgot which American politician you rely on.

That is joke, comrade.


When you have to go into survival mode to keep your protest from being disbanded, that should tell you a lot about the current situation.


To be honest, what that tells me, is that the protest doesn't have a strong enough organized message, and is just full of people with nothing to do. No credible protest really needs to struggle to keep itself alive.

[Professor S]

I just got annoyed by the tyranny bit because the invasion of corporate property by protesters couldn't lead to tyranny. It's only the circumvention of laws by the government that can do that.

I never said that the invasion of corporate property by protesters leads to tyranny. I said that ruling by the will of the enlightened few, rather than the will of the people (reflected in laws passed in a government determined by self-rule) can lead to tyranny. If you ignore or refuse laws in a self-determined government, you are rejecting the democratic process, not protecting it. Hence my comments about following your argument down the rabbit hole. Your reaction to this specific set of events reveals a troubling distrust of lawful self-rule, IMO.

That said, in American there are inalienable rights; rights that cannot be removed even through a democratic process (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). In that way I agree with KG that we may have stepped on some of them, but that would be for the courts to decide (and a lesser extent, elections).

[Typhoid]

I'm only going to comment on this specific quote because I literally just finished smoking a joint - no intention of derailing, or arguing etc.

That said, in American there are inalienable rights; rights that cannot be removed even through a democratic process (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)

That's a whole other can of worms, though.

George Carlin put it best: man doesn't have rights by birth, you have privileges.

I don't think the "pursuit of happiness" is a right. Anything that is conditional is not a right. Rights are things like Free Speech, Free Religion, Free Sexuality. Those are rights.

[Professor S]

I'm only going to comment on this specific quote because I literally just finished smoking a joint - no intention of derailing, or arguing etc.



That's a whole other can of worms, though.

George Carlin put it best: man doesn't have rights by birth, you have privileges.

I don't think the "pursuit of happiness" is a right. Anything that is conditional is not a right. Rights are things like Free Speech, Free Religion, Free Sexuality. Those are rights.

If the only rights man has are given to him by other men, then men can take them away without repudiation. Unalienable (misspelling corrected) rights (based on natural law) are the only rights we really have, because man cannot give them or justly take them away. Understanding this concept is a lot easier if you believe in a creator.

Also, how is pursuit of happiness conditional? It guarantees you the right to pursue your own joy, and reflexively prohibits you (or the government) from inhibiting anyone else from that pursuit (eliminating acts against others as a route to happiness). Now there are a lot of ways to interpret our unalienable rights, but that was intentional.

Also, these rights are identified in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, so they remain more a natural law than a human law.

[Typhoid]

I constantly feel the need to make it clear I'm not maliciously arguing - just keeping a conversation going. You know, just for the record and all.

Also, how is pursuit of happiness conditional? It guarantees you the right to pursue your own joy, and reflexively prohibits you (or the government) from inhibiting anyone else from that pursuit (eliminating acts against others as a route to happiness). Now there are a lot of ways to interpret our inalienable rights, but that was intentional.


You cannot pursue happiness, unless it is in the confines of the law. That is not Freedom. That's a guideline.

You can however love who you want, believe what you want, and say what you want. On our continent, or at least Canada and the US - those are the only true "Birth Rights" we have. But even then, those "Birth Rights" were given to us by normal men, who decided it was a good idea.

You don't have the birth right to be happy. You have the birth right to be whomever you want to be, and attempt to find what makes you happy within the confines of the law.


If the only rights man has are given to him by other men, then men can take them away without repudiation.

(That's essentially why I quoted George Carlin and said "man does not have rights, he has privileges".)

Our North American rights (The Free Speech/Religion/Love) mean absolutely nothing to some leaders in other parts of the world.

And hell, even in the US I don't think you're legally allowed to be gay and get married in most places. Score a point for Freedom. Freedom to marry who you want as long as a group of likeminded people approve the person you're marrying. :lol:

The Freedom to publicly worship whoever you want, unless it's Satan, or Mohammad.
The Freedom to publicly say what you want, unless it's racist or sexist.

I'm not saying Canada is better than the US in this case. It's all the same boat. I'm just not a fan of the whole "Freedom this, Freedom that."
We're only as free as the leaders we elect, and their committee of friends allow us to be.

Edit: And I'm aware I sort of contradicted myself with the "I believe these are the only true birth rights we have" and ending with "We don't have Freedom". I was stating what I believe we SHOULD have as birth rights (and do) - I just felt like ending with the realism that we don't have Freeom. We only have Freedom because the rest of the world is so fucking oppressed compared to us(North America). That doesn't mean we're Free. It just means we're less oppressed.

[Bond]

Typhoid, I understand your personal view on the issue of rights, but you do know western philosophical thought is founded on a separation between natural (unalienable) rights and legal rights, right? Natural rights exist outside the legal system -- they are timeless and cannot be taken away (as in they were not given by man, so they were not given by the legal system). Legal rights are given by man and hence fall under the legal system. Our declaration of independence, constitution, and really any english common law document is founded on this principle.

[Professor S]

I constantly feel the need to make it clear I'm not maliciously arguing - just keeping a conversation going. You know, just for the record and all.

And I'm conversating. :)

You cannot pursue happiness, unless it is in the confines of the law. That is not Freedom. That's a guideline.

You can however love who you want, believe what you want, and say what you want. On our continent, or at least Canada and the US - those are the only true "Birth Rights" we have. But even then, those "Birth Rights" were given to us by normal men, who decided it was a good idea.

You don't have the birth right to be happy. You have the birth right to be whomever you want to be, and attempt to find what makes you happy within the confines of the law.

I don't think we disagree on this. I never said you had the right to be happy. You have the right to pursue happiness. There are no guarantees.

As for laws, you are talking about human laws. I am talking about natural laws; those that should be maintained outside of government fought to the death to maintain. See: Thomas Equinas (http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/AquinasLessons/aq110998.htm)

Edit: And I'm aware I sort of contradicted myself with the "I believe these are the only true birth rights we have" and ending with "We don't have Freedom". I was stating what I believe we SHOULD have as birth rights (and do) - I just felt like ending with the realism that we don't have Freedom. We only have Freedom because the rest of the world is so fucking oppressed compared to us(North America). That doesn't mean we're Free. It just means we're less oppressed.

I thought we agreed more than we disagreed. I would also make the difference between Freedom and Liberty. Total freedom is anarchy. IMO, Liberty is Freedom limited to protect others' rights to pursue happiness.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Dylflon]

And you voted for....Obama, right? :ohreilly:

Sorry, I forgot which American politician you rely on.

That is joke, comrade.

Despite the jokingness, I kinda believe now that it doesn't matter which politician is in power when the system is broken. I'd still rather it be Obama than a Republican candidate, but I think we've witnessed now that hope for change doesn't really lead to results when the political machine fights change every step of the way.

[TheGame]

Despite the jokingness, I kinda believe now that it doesn't matter which politician is in power when the system is broken. I'd still rather it be Obama than a Republican candidate, but I think we've witnessed now that hope for change doesn't really lead to results when the political machine fights change every step of the way.

Agreed.

Btw, thank you for replying to this thread and moving the focus back to why people are protesting opposed to why people don't like how this partictular protest is being handled. I was about to lose my mind reading the first couple pages of people basically quoting the mainstream media trying to downplay the effectiveness and misreprsent the character of the people who are at occupy wallstreet.

The fact that we're even having this discussion proves that it is effective.

As for offering solutions to the problems, that's what representatives are there for. Not everyone is going to have answers for how to fix what's broken in the system as it is today. The point is to bring attention to the fact that the system IS broken. Eventually with enough public support (in theory) there should be a politician who comes out and represents these people who feel like the system is broken, and who tries to get voted in to actually fix it.

Right now, all we can do is hope that the system can still be fixed by non violent means. But if it can't be, people need to be ready to do what they have to do. That's how the country was built to begin with.

[Bond]

Btw, thank you for replying to this thread and moving the focus back to why people are protesting opposed to why people don't like how this partictular protest is being handled. I was about to lose my mind reading the first couple pages of people basically quoting the mainstream media trying to downplay the effectiveness and misreprsent the character of the people who are at occupy wallstreet.
Where in this thread has anyone quoted the mainstream media?

As for offering solutions to the problems, that's what representatives are there for. Not everyone is going to have answers for how to fix what's broken in the system as it is today. The point is to bring attention to the fact that the system IS broken. Eventually with enough public support (in theory) there should be a politician who comes out and represents these people who feel like the system is broken, and who tries to get voted in to actually fix it.
What is the "system?" No one can fix the "system" if it's an abstract idea.

I would like to engage in a serious discussion on serious issues. I brought up increasing inequality on page one and cited real data, but no one continued the discussion. Let's talk about specific problems facing our country and then discuss solutions to them.

[Typhoid]

Let's talk about specific problems facing our country and then discuss solutions to them.


But it's so much easier just to make signs and wave your fingers in the air.

[Professor S]

Let's talk about specific problems facing our country and then discuss solutions to them.

I'm not sure my contribution will meet your guidelines, but I think the issue at hand is as much a philosophical problem as a policy problem. We lay our futures at the feet of others expecting all our problems to be swept away in a cleansing wave of altruism. In reality, we have provided those that would rig the system for their own interests with the means to do so.

The greatest myth we need to overcome is the myth that our collective future is somehow controllable by a select few elected officials. The greatest and most productive social and economic systems known to man simply come into existence without some grand plan. See: Spontaneous Orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aPICY2SXgn0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now even though this is a free-market principle, and I am not a 100% free marketer, but I think can see what happens when we layer thousands of pages of tax law and regulations (or unequal deregulation*) on top of the marketplace: Rampant corruption (government and industry) and a severely uneven playing field.

Currently taxes and regulations are constructed in a way that prevents new personal wealth (progressive taxes, estate taxes, etc.), upward mobility, and consolidates power.

But the great lie is that we can somehow wave a magic wand of regulations and new taxes to fix our problems. These ideas are how we GOT HERE. If bashing your skull with a hammer is giving you a headache, you can fix it by hitting yourself HARDER.

At first I thought our main problem was arrogance, but looking harder I think our main problem is a feeling of impotence and lack of self-esteem; that we can't possibly control our own lives and culture. We are too stupid and weak. That we need to select others to control these processes for us. Meanwhile, these select few only beat us down more, and we seem to respond "thank you sir... may I have another?"

What we complain about in society are the spontaneous orders that have grown BECAUSE to our rejection of personal responsibility and collective self-loathing. There is no grand conspiracy; no shadow government or unknowable force or evil political party oppressing us. We have gotten exactly what we asked for.

How to fix it? Until we start asking for responsibility, instead of giving it away, I don't imagine anything will change (we'll still have good economies and bad economies, but the imbalance will remain).


*Many blame the current economic crisis on a lack of regulation over the mortgage and financial industry, but the truth is this industry was a remains one of the most highly regulated in the country. What no one asks is WHAT sectors were over-regulated, what sectors were deregulated, and what sectors WEREN'T REGULATED AT ALL. Example: Many hedge funds were allowed to run without any government oversight at all during the 90's and much of the 00's (maybe still today). They brought in record profits, and record investment. This is an uneven playing field and an unnatural imbalance consolidating massive amounts of investment $. IMO, unnatural economic systems are deadly whether through selective regulation, or selective deregulation.

[TheGame]

What is the "system?" No one can fix the "system" if it's an abstract idea.

I would like to engage in a serious discussion on serious issues. I brought up increasing inequality on page one and cited real data, but no one continued the discussion. Let's talk about specific problems facing our country and then discuss solutions to them.

Have you not read the 22 declarations (well 23 now) of occupy wall street?

http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2011/09/29/the-declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

“As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, formerly… divided by the color of our skin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or lack thereof, political party and cultural background, we acknowledge the reality: that there is only one race, the human race, and our survival requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their brethren; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

1.They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
2.They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give CEO’s exorbitant bonuses.
3.They have perpetuated gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace.
4.They have poisoned the food supply, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
5.They have continuously sought to end the rights of workers to negotiate their pay and make complaints about the safety of their workplace.
6.They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
7.They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
8.They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
9.They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
10.They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
11.They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
12.They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
13.They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
14.They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.
15.They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
16.They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.
17.They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty book keeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
18.They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
19.They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
20.They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
21.They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.
22.They have participated in a directly racist action by accepting the contract from the State of Georgia to murder Troy Davis.
23.They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
To the people of the world: We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power. Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy: We offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!”

Agree or disagree all you would like, but these are people who are looking for representation.

Obama, congress, and the mainstream media are all a product of this broken system. So don't expect them to do anything except try to bury this.

To answer your first question, the media's strategy to get around discussing the actual issues that drive the protest is to focus on how people are going about the protest wrong and/or characterize the participants as a confused angry mob. That's basically what I got from the first couple pages of this thread. What I quoted has been out there since the end of September, and you still will catch the media acting like people are protesting with no purpose.

Before you can start working on a solution for a problem, you have to first recognize that there is a problem. And when it comes to politics, you need to show your representatives that there's a lot of support out there for trying to fix the problem. So now we have a whole list of issues that people can take a stance on for the 2012 elections. Obama, product of the current broken system, will have no opinion on this. Don't expect a republican to either. You're only allowed to be against it, or not have an opinion if you want the big doners.

#13 and #14 on the list are the biggest issues to me. I think once those issues are resolved, it would take a lot of pressure off for resolving the other ones.

[Bond]

Well, I'd be happy to engage with you on certain or each of the 23 points listed in the Occupy executive summary.

The first thing that stands out to me in this declaration is that it blames everything (all 23 points) on corporations. That doesn't seem rather rational to me. Our economic, political, and social structures are complex, interwoven, and most of all, complicated. To blame the entirety of our woes on corporations is disingenuous at best. But I will digress, and try to not judge this manifesto by its opening, but rather by its substance.

[TheGame]

To blame the entirety of our woes on corporations is disingenuous at best.

This is why I think #13 and #14 are the biggest issues. I'd also place #8 up there, and #18 to an extent. They make for an incentive structure that's built to cater to the corperations.

-EDIT-

With the above said, can you give an example of something that's not a corperation's fault? I mean, you could blame the government, but their financial incentives to get into office come from large corperations. You could blame the media for not covering things fully/honestly, but they also have financial incentive to feed the corperations. You could blame your average citizens for not stepping up, but they're mis informed by both their government and media and it usually bends their opinion into something that supports large corperations more than themselves.

This is why Occupy Wall Street is nessicary, because trying to get change in a broken system without making a scene doesn't seem to be possible nowadays.

I mean, listen to yourself on the first page: "Well... it's certainly an interesting movement, but without point or purpose, I don't see it going far. There have been comparisons to the tea party, but I doubt it will have a similar political impact."

The 23 declearations have been out there 2 months... and not once was your media or government honest enough to tell you that THIS is the purpose of the movement?? (I'm not going to say none of the big 3 ever mentioned it, but I guarantee the ratio is probably 1:100 or more for times the declarations were mentionned vs the times it was mentioned that this movement has no meaningful purpose) And this movement is much bigger than the Tea Party one, MUCH bigger. Yet it's so under played that it makes one wonder if corperations are really in favor of the tea party movement on some level.

[Professor S]

Update: Philadelphia occupiers were evicted from Dilworth Plaza this morning after three warnings to leave. No incidents of violence, but there were many arrests when protesters refuse to vacate the streets and move to other common areas. Apparently clean-up took several hours using bulldozers and fire hoses. Again, protesters have the right to protest, but not to do this...

http://hosted2.ap.org/CBImages/?media=photo&contentId=45c8b481b76dba1aff0e6a706700fb99&fmt=jpg&Role=Preview&reldt=2011-11-28T02:02:21GMT&authToken=eNoNy7ENwCAMBMCJLL3lx5iCYTAJEl3KFAyfXH%2FnfrsbSyjVGABItDN3Z5mRDJWsfkkOHbIWbvFR4RVY2drZTxet RvzZ4gMZ9RQi

[TheGame]

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/02/9164126-congress-white-house-at-odds-over-defense-bill

The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.

Why would something like this pass so easilly in the senate? And why now?

[Seth]

Explains why Obama is opposed to the bill.
I can't believe people can imitate the message that we are somehow in a moral position to get rid of tyrancy in middle eastern countries.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28055


Also, hopefully Ron Paul will win so that either a) he absolves the Federal Reserve, private printing of debt-attached currency in America, or b) he will be put on a 'hit' and his martyrdom will inspire the millions needed to incite change.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1459/345/Ron_Paul_Has_Won_More_Straw_Polls_Than_Any_Other_Republican_Candidate.html

It wasn't until 1933 that 'feder reserve' became printed on currency.

[Dylflon]

I'm not sure my contribution will meet your guidelines, but I think the issue at hand is as much a philosophical problem as a policy problem. We lay our futures at the feet of others expecting all our problems to be swept away in a cleansing wave of altruism. In reality, we have provided those that would rig the system for their own interests with the means to do so.

The greatest myth we need to overcome is the myth that our collective future is somehow controllable by a select few elected officials. The greatest and most productive social and economic systems known to man simply come into existence without some grand plan. See: Spontaneous Orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aPICY2SXgn0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now even though this is a free-market principle, and I am not a 100% free marketer, but I think can see what happens when we layer thousands of pages of tax law and regulations (or unequal deregulation*) on top of the marketplace: Rampant corruption (government and industry) and a severely uneven playing field.

Currently taxes and regulations are constructed in a way that prevents new personal wealth (progressive taxes, estate taxes, etc.), upward mobility, and consolidates power.

But the great lie is that we can somehow wave a magic wand of regulations and new taxes to fix our problems. These ideas are how we GOT HERE. If bashing your skull with a hammer is giving you a headache, you can fix it by hitting yourself HARDER.

At first I thought our main problem was arrogance, but looking harder I think our main problem is a feeling of impotence and lack of self-esteem; that we can't possibly control our own lives and culture. We are too stupid and weak. That we need to select others to control these processes for us. Meanwhile, these select few only beat us down more, and we seem to respond "thank you sir... may I have another?"

What we complain about in society are the spontaneous orders that have grown BECAUSE to our rejection of personal responsibility and collective self-loathing. There is no grand conspiracy; no shadow government or unknowable force or evil political party oppressing us. We have gotten exactly what we asked for.

How to fix it? Until we start asking for responsibility, instead of giving it away, I don't imagine anything will change (we'll still have good economies and bad economies, but the imbalance will remain).


*Many blame the current economic crisis on a lack of regulation over the mortgage and financial industry, but the truth is this industry was a remains one of the most highly regulated in the country. What no one asks is WHAT sectors were over-regulated, what sectors were deregulated, and what sectors WEREN'T REGULATED AT ALL. Example: Many hedge funds were allowed to run without any government oversight at all during the 90's and much of the 00's (maybe still today). They brought in record profits, and record investment. This is an uneven playing field and an unnatural imbalance consolidating massive amounts of investment $. IMO, unnatural economic systems are deadly whether through selective regulation, or selective deregulation.

Great post, strongly agree.

[Seth]

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/htktdv28EF4&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/htktdv28EF4&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>



Great way to eat dinner if you have someone to watch it with. 1:53:00 length.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/20355767?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/20355767">Lifting the Veil</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user4563180">S DN</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>




About NDAA Section 1031. Remove wording that protects civil rights and then object to the lack of this protective language.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PLiKvSz_wX8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheGame]

Explains why Obama is opposed to the bill.
I can't believe people can imitate the message that we are somehow in a moral position to get rid of tyrancy in middle eastern countries.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28055


Also, hopefully Ron Paul will win so that either a) he absolves the Federal Reserve, private printing of debt-attached currency in America, or b) he will be put on a 'hit' and his martyrdom will inspire the millions needed to incite change.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1459/345/Ron_Paul_Has_Won_More_Straw_Polls_Than_Any_Other_Republican_Candidate.html

It wasn't until 1933 that 'feder reserve' became printed on currency.

If you haven't heard already, Obama flopped on his veto warnings now supports the bill. The mainstream media should have been in an outrage about this, but they weren't.. goes back to the point about the system being broken.

If this next election is Obama vs Romney... this is just sad. I'm not sure what Obama can even say next time he runs, he's already proven himself to be a liar and absolute failure. And Mick Romney is a proud corperatist (Obama's the closet one). Don't get me wrong, there's differences between Obama and Romney, but what they have in common is all bad for the country.

I'm in Ron Paul's camp, even though I don't agree with him as much as I did with candidate Obama in 2008. President Obama lost his right to a second term in my book.

[Professor S]

Just watched a video and thought it supported many of y feelings expressed in this thread:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BUvUtqTmd5c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edit: This one is even better...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qiMaipssKt4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheGame]

Good points in those videos. But Occupy wallstreet isn't a blanket call for regulation or deregulation, so I don't know what relevance this has with the thread. The real issue is that the government's incentive structure is set to bend to the will of giant corperations. So the second video is more on topic in that sense.

I guarantee if any type of deregulation happens it will also feed the large corperations and hurt competition and the quality/price of products too... because that's just how things are run here now. It's very rare that the government passes something that the big banks or giant corperations don't like and that's for the good of the consumers.

[Professor S]

I guarantee if any type of deregulation happens it will also feed the large corperations and hurt competition and the quality/price of products too...

That depends on how you go about it, but overall I'd say history doesn't agree with your perspective (but please cite examples if I am incorrect). There are many very public cases where deregulation has led to more choice, lower prices, etc.

Examples:

1) Air travel - The "jet set" used to be a very real thing. Only the very wealthy could afford it. Also, companies like PanAm famously captured the regulatory marketplace and basically owned politicians. When air travel was deregulated in the late 70's more airlines came about, with more routes, and drastically reduced prices. All of this led to more choice for many more people. Air travel is now common for the middle class.

2) Telecommunications - "Ma Bell" was a very real thing as well. Local service was separate from long distance and you could only purchase a phone from the phone company. Not surprisingly, long distance was incredibly expensive (I remember when you had to pay per minute to call another state or even zip code) and the phones didn't advance in technology for 30 years. Once deregulation took place we went from a 30 pound tethered phones to mini-supercomputers in out pockets and calling long distance doesn't make us think twice.

The reason why deregulation, when handled with a cudgel and not an exacto-knife, tends to work is that it separates the corporation from the government. Once separated, the corporation can no longer influence the government because the levers to do so no longer exist. It's like trying to drive a car with no gas. Now the corporation is beholden to the consumer, and the products and prices it creates, and they no longer have the luxury of a government that can force business their way. As bad as the worst corporation is, they still cannot FORCE you to buy anything unless the government makes you.* They actually have to engage in CAPITALISM. Shudder the thought... :D

But I agree, we have to be vigilant in how "deregulation" happens. As pointed out in those videos, selective deregulation is as counterproductive and over-regulation.

And yes, if you were wondering I am not longer ignoring you (on a trial basis) ;)

*Example: The new healthcare law mandates or in much more impactful cases, intense EPA and OSHA over-regulation. Once of the biggest reasons why new housing in being pushed to either McMansions or large apartment complexes are the sheer number of mandated "safety" features that new construction builders must contend with. It simply is not profitable to build medium sized single famiy homes anymore. To make money, you have to "go big or go home". Meanwhile, these new homes have an average lifespan of about 30 years, if that, while my "dangerous" home built before regulations has been upright for almost 100 years and my parents' home is almost 140 years old.

[TheGame]

Yup, we have to be clear about what deregulation is being pursued. It's a two way street. They clearly point out in the videos that corperations have a hand in their own regulations, but the fact remains that they have a hand in their own deregulations (not that any have been done on the federal level any time recently that I can think of).

The point of the occupy wallstreet movement is to draw attention to that hand getting stronger and the economy/people suffering as a result of it.

[Teuthida]

Alan Moore walks about occupy protestors.
<param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1384044755001&playerID=69900095001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN-2U&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1384044755001&playerID=69900095001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN-2U&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="370" height="260" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

[Seth]

On regulation cronyism:

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=783B7C44AA93208D325B26FBB54FE025

This is the problem with America. The Queen mother insures that her nephews had raw milk delivered directly to them when they were studying at Oxford. The royal family is a huge supporter of holistic alternative medicine and agricultural reform that is directly counter to the American model of excessive production with the expense of soil erosion, depletion, and water contamination. Not to mention the health consequences that exponentially greater in children.

The 25 minute mark of the video shows an incident where a police officer illegally detains a woman who was videotaping a traffic stop, from the front yard of her property. Getting charged with "obstructing government" is indicative of a huge shift in law enforcement training. Basically, we're screwed when it comes to civilian's accountability measures, which include observing and recording police actions within safe parameters.

This is important because, while I don't think it's very good to dwell or obsess over police abuses of power, there are so many video recorded incidents that showcase a complete shift in law enforcement ideology. In Canada, mounties used to operate differently. We have a huge drug scene problem on the west coast, and it requires a unique approach to law enforcement. However, in regulation the civilian population is being persecuted in its ability to maintain freedoms and ensure our safety and proper discourse in matters of police policies and the protection of our rights.

[TheGame]

Seth that video says a lot.

Eventually the government will be able to throw anyone in jail at will for any reason. Heck the NDAA basically allows that now. The whole internet crap (SOPA/PIPA) just gives them more things they can arrest you for.