Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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). Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
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%".
Quote:
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?" Quote:
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
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: Quote:
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! |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
Quote:
However, I will agree that more focus should be put on the political system that allowed this to happen. Quote:
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
And you voted for....Obama, right? :ohreilly: Sorry, I forgot which American politician you rely on. That is joke, comrade. Quote:
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. |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
Quote:
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). |
Re: Occupy Wallstreet
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.
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern