Occupy Wallstreet

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.