Occupy Wallstreet

[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%.



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...ult/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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

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.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

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?

[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.

[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/...Candidate.html

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

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by 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/...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:



Edit: This one is even better...

[Seth]

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

Lifting the Veil from S DN on Vimeo.

About NDAA Section 1031. Remove wording that protects civil rights and then object to the lack of this protective language.

[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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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...

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.