What's the point of "Occupy Wall Street"?

[guerilla]

See, you view it as government is the crux of the problem, not money.

I can explain why government is the problem.

Can you explain why money is the problem?

I would be happy to debate you on this topic.

I view it the other way around, and honestly, so does history.

Arguments to history are a fallacy. Please avoid them.

Regardless of what type of civilization we setup, humans will always remain intrinsically greedy, and money fills this hunger.

I agree humans will always be greedy, because greed is necessary to have individualism, rationalism, economy and society. Without greed, people would be fundamentally irrational.

As far as money, money as you talk about it is government issued debt. If we're talking about non or pre-government money, you mean metals, which are means of exchange and stores of value. If you can explain what is evil about storing value, or engaging in exchange, I am sure we would all like to hear it.

Money buys respect, loyalty, people, natural resources, weapons, influence, technology, and oh so much more. With that, you can control a sizable population, redraw borders as you see fit, write the history books, and so on.

Money buys what people produce. People produce what people want. The same money you criticize for buying weapons also buys medicine and food.

Money, in and of itself, is neutral. If you had read my previous posts, I have already covered this.

This is how human civilization has worked since we began walking upright, so I don't understand why you think if we get rid of all government, that's all of a sudden going to change.

I don't recall saying this. Source it.

I view

humans will always

write the history books

so I don't understand why

you'll end up with militias

like ExxonMobil and Walmart

Geneva Convention

won't give a shit

Besides, nobody will care when

the government

isn't going to change

how humans tick.

Your argument or something.

I ignored the rest of your post as it was irrelevant and unsupported.

Feel free to post an argument and substantiate it. You don't need to quote my posts to editorialize your opinions.

 

[MSTeacher]

If you know men are dangerous and violent, why give them an institutional monopoly over everyone to practice those antisocial tendencies?

Because I see no compelling evidence that despite its monopoly its absence renders anything comparable or better. Nor that its absence will be a practical reality in the immediate future.

And because 'them' includes me and I don't support those antisocial tendencies and can contribute to stopping them. Delusion in practice? Yeah obviously for now, maybe for a long time. But then compared to what. I would argue that the growing up humanity needs to do before it can sustain anarchist society is the very same growing up it needs to do to use the state responsibly. Different strokes for different folks.

I don't know what you mean by 'wholly corrupt'. Corrupt to me means taking unjust advantage of a privileged position. If that's what you mean then I don't think any government is wholly corrupt. And no non governmental body is wholly not corrupt. I think it's more a question of the extent of corruption and whether the system accommodating it can be improved upon.

You can't determine if the state is better or worse, because a defining characteristic of a state is a lack of competition (territorial monopoly).

How can you make a value decision when you are only allowed one value?

Better or worse than none at all, no, I can't determine that or make an absolute value judgment. I can determine if one state is better than another, and because this is the most realistic reflection of human organization at this point in history I don't concern myself with value judgments that present themselves as practically irrelevant. Maybe that's narrow minded. I suppose it's expediency.

Delusions aren't relative.

we'll agree to disagree.

 

[guerilla]

Because I see no compelling evidence that despite its monopoly its absence renders anything comparable or better. Nor that its absence will be a practical reality in the immediate future.

How can you see evidence when there is a monopoly?

Think this through. You insist you need evidence of something different being effective, when you endorse a system based on that lack of evidence, which prevents any new evidence to emerge.

It's like you telling the only girl you have ever met, who refuses to let you meet other girls, that she is the only one for you.

Corrupt to me means taking unjust advantage of a privileged position.

Name one person in government who is not taking advantage of privilege given that government is by definition, privilege by monopoly.

we'll agree to disagree.

If you remove the contradictions in your position which you wave off as "practical", "expedient" and "irrelevant" then we'd probably end up a lot closer.

But I can do what others do. Watch.

History has always been bla blabla. Whatever your position is, I disagree because I am practical and your position is irrelevant.

Now ask yourself, is that an argument? Or is that basically rhetoric without any substance?

I'm not trying to argue with you personally, I think you're very smart and I have come to appreciate a lot of your posts. But I think you're selling yourself short by refusing to re-examine your position and break it down to check that the premises you work from are in fact congruent with each other (logic) and with reality.

 

[ck256]

LOL, perhaps. Does sound similar.

The Colonials, however, had a unified goal of freedom and self-governance. OWS has no such unification, just "We want wall street to pay for us not having cushy jobs..." -Utter tripe that can't be quantified nor even taken seriously.

Might as well be unified in wanting free unicorns.

True, but it started with taxes on Tea, then Sedition, then stamp taxes, etc, etc.

Point is, it starts somewhere, gets people talking, maybe acting, and could lead to things changing.

 

[unagi]

wow i'm amazed at how narrow so many opinions come across on here...

its just one more manifestation of something a lot more complex - the world has to change in many ways - capitalism has become a perverse version of itself...
capitalism isnt the problem, democracy itself is actually a bit of a fallacy when you have the kind of population sizes we do now,

if you care about this stuff, think for yourself, learn about philosophy, my plato didn't support democracy - it manifests with as many problems as socialism...

at this point i support anything drastic - i almost think things need to implode like a mother fucking shit storm for us to have any hope... as we cant see beyond the tip of our noses, or dont want to

two excellent docus worth your time:

After Democracy | Watch Free Documentary Online

Generation OS13: The New Culture of Resistance | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[unagi]

and if anyone actually (as a lot of you seem to) think that politics can 'reform' in some way to get out of the mess the west, this world really is in you are very deluded

it isn't about whether obama or who the fuck gets elected or any of that... its just not a system from within which i see the capability for the change needed to occur....

(i do think china ultimately is the best hope as it gradually changes.... i know lots of you yanks will be pissed, but you're kind of nutters and a touch too defensive... being a canadian i think i have a bit of a privledged perspective to be basically just like you but one step removed... seriously though that world is fucked, and people - especially youth, feel it - it is really fucking not a good situation ...

but these little debates and squabbling over politics or whatever.... open your eyes and realize you dont know, they dont know, know one fucking knows... as a species we are a bit of a mess...
i have hope and a lot of it , but there has to be some kind of EXTREME massive change, and inevitably will be...

 

[MSTeacher]

You insist you need evidence of something different being effective, when you endorse a system based on that lack of evidence, which prevents any new evidence to emerge.

Yeah I hear that and I think it's a valid point, although I suppose my saying there is no evidence is inaccurate. There is anarchist literature and there are some real world examples to study. That evidence doesn't really blow my hair back.

I endorse the system because unfortunately I don't think humanity can currently keep its shit together without it and I want humanity to keep its shit together. If I had reason to believe that humanity could keep its shit together without the system I would endorse that too and conclude that there is more than one way to skin a cat and the means through which people are best suited to organize their society are a matter of preference or conditioning or whatever.

I accept the system, albeit begrudgingly, because working alternatives involving its absence are unavailable and I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to change.

It might be said that state monopoly is wholly at fault for a lack of working alternatives. I wonder. Is some of this fault found in humanity's nature, or current state of immaturity, at a level deeper than its current reliance on statism? Are we not ready or capable to sustain such an alternative? And/or could it be that those who espouse such anarchist alternatives and are best suited to sustain them lack the leadership, organization or will to put their ideas into practice?

On a related note in following this line of inquiry, assuming evidence for an alternative is indeed in short supply, how are we to endorse or accept such an alternative? I would like to think it is more than a matter of faith. It may be appropriate to condemn the normative appeal of one who concludes, 'the state's been around for a long time, it must need to exist, just have to accept that.' Is it not equally or more worth condemning a conclusion such as 'the state is a violent monopoly, its absence must be better than its presence, just have to accept that.'

Name one person in government who is not taking advantage of privilege given that government is by definition, privilege by monopoly.

lol nevermind

If you remove the contradictions in your position which you wave off as "practical", "expedient" and "irrelevant" then we'd probably end up a lot closer.

Yeah that doesn't do much for me.

History has always been bla blabla. Whatever your position is, I disagree because I am practical and your position is irrelevant.

Now ask yourself, is that an argument? Or is that basically rhetoric without any substance?

The 'Whatever your position is' part is..overzealous, but that aside in some cases yes it is an argument, others not. Your question does not deserve a simple all-inclusive answer.

 

[lukep]

What's this WE stuff? There is only you. And me. Two individuals. There is no WE.

I meant it as "we the people," as in the same we who would be burdened with overthrowing the government if it came time.

How is corporate money unfair?

Money that the corporations spend is not itself inherently 'unfair.' Like you say, it is neutral as is my own money.

What is wrong with corporate personhood?

Now that's the real issue here. The short answer: TONS.

Corporate personhood, cemented fully in 2010 when the SCOTUS (very narrowly) voted it into being allowed the powerful corporations to have a voice equal to our own in washington.

That wouldn't be so bad IMO if it was just a vote... You know, I get one vote, and Exxon gets one vote... That's kinda fair...

But no, they allowed corps to SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AFFORD, just like me to get the press out on the candidate of their choice, too.

That's the evil here. Allowing corps to do something so damn effective that we little humans cannot yet calling it "equal."

They can get their issues taken seriously with Billions of dollars in TV advertising & lobbyists. (Not to mention bribes under the table.)

We the People cannot. We're not unified enough to do so.

And why aren't we unified enough? Perhaps because those same corps influence the media & educational system to keep people stupid & drooling? Playing read team, blue team perhaps? This is clearly Bread & circuses.

I have as much need as the next guy for corporate goods but the big corps, especially the top 100 or so, have an extremely UNFAIR advantage to get what they want and it hurts the people for them to get it.

I know this isn't a democracy like the lady in the film states... But think of what the founding fathers wanted... Back before corps were around.... They wanted a system where every person's vote was equal. That is clear in the constitution, excepting of course for the women and slaves thing.

So, do you think Jefferson and Franklin would be kosher with this relatively new occurrence where the corporation wields far, far greater power to sway elections and votes in washington than the people ever could?

Stefan Molyneux thinks we can do it with better parenting. Stop raising violent retards. Could take awhile. I don't think it will happen until we evolve as a species. Meanwhile, those of us who are further evolved have to just try to get through life without getting hurt by the current crop of violent retards in and out of politics.

Agreed 100% Parenting is the key, but Parenting standards are trending in the wrong direction! Don't forget how IQs have generally been trending down for centuries too... We're naturally selecting ourselves to be a stupid race very quickly.

I'm not waiting, nor do I care to work towards that day. It's not going to happen on any large scale for millennia.

Honestly our best bet at living government-free is to create more land. Seasteading and Moon bases are where it's at... Assuming you can beat the powers that be to them.

 

[grieve]

Has anyone actually walked past one of these protests? I just did last night, Occupy Vancouver. It is by FAR the most disgraceful thing in the world. It is honestly just a bunch of delusional, smelly, homeless people sleeping underneath tarps. Their signs say retarded shit like "Socialism for the 99%, Capitalism for the 1%" and other ridiculous kooky crap. These protests have ZERO credibility in my eyes. It's just some pathetic excuse for hippies to get together and smoke weed and camp outside for a really long time.

I was scoping out all the people in the protest and not a SINGLE person looked like they'd be able to hold their own in any sort of debate. Really, really fucking sad.

 

[MSTeacher]

Moon bases are where it's at... Assuming you can beat the powers that be to them.

too late

 

[jenzkc]

 

[MSTeacher]

So Adbusters seems to have bit the bullet on their programmatic bankruptcy and is calling for a 1% Wall Street sales tax. Interesting.

They did this early last week and within 24 hours cops went gonzo in Oakland and elsewhere over the next couple days.

 

[lose lose win]

That's what the fuck I'm talking about.. + fucking rep to these guys.. takes serious balls.

militia brings ar15 rifles to occupy pheonix


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0HNr2Y7B5c"]Occupy Phoenix Veteran Protesters with AR-15's protecting the other protesters - YouTube[/ame]

 

[lukep]

Sweet baby jebus... I don't think I approve of this turn of events.

Of course I agree with everything the big guy said on that interview, but I think we all know that bringing an actual army to these protests could result in OWS being viewed as something to put down with deadly force.

Of course the cops aren't going to be the ones told to fire on them... If this trend continues, the national guard will be called in and all OWS protests will have a presence of both small armies like this one and larger National Guard troops to watch them very carefully.

Then all it will take from that point is one stupid mistake on either side... Some shit like a drunk or just an imbicile leaving their safety off, to get some serious bloodshed flowing.

Then it's literally a bloody, armed uprising on US soil.

Don't get me wrong, such a thing isn't unthinkable... But with the unorganized OWS group such a thing is a disaster from the start that will only, I repeat ONLY result in the government imposing far more restrictions over us.

Most likely it will get our 2nd amendment rights taken away!


tl;dr: This should not be done for a group as unorganized as OWS. There is MUCH to lose.

 

[jenzkc]

Most likely it will get our 2nd amendment rights taken away!


tl;dr: This should not be done for a group as unorganized as OWS. There is MUCH to lose.

You worry too much. American citizens will win this battle.

 

[lukep]

You worry too much. American citizens will win this battle.

WTF? Are we talking about the same battle?

I'm talking about one centered around #occupy, and their total lack of leadership and common goals.

If their "armed division" acts up and then gets put down then lawmakers in DC will take matters into their own hands to remove more of our rights. (In the name of fighting domestic terrorism.)

How can this not be obvious?

 

[jenzkc]

WTF? Are we talking about the same battle?

I'm talking about one centered around #occupy, and their total lack of leadership and common goals.

If their "armed division" acts up and then gets put down then lawmakers in DC will take matters into their own hands to remove more of our rights. (In the name of fighting domestic terrorism.)

How can this not be obvious?

Yes, we citizens (including OWS) will win this battle. The citizens will just reinstate the rights if the govt. tries to take them away.

 

[lukep]

Yes, we citizens (including OWS) will win this battle. The citizens will just reinstate the rights if the govt. tries to take them away.

Did you just fucking wake up after a Decade in a coma?

Since the last time a "bunch of terrorists" attacked US soil, we've lost SHITLOADS of freedoms and not nearly enough americans gave a shit!

 

[lose lose win]

WTF? Are we talking about the same battle?

I'm talking about one centered around #occupy, and their total lack of leadership and common goals.

If their "armed division" acts up and then gets put down then lawmakers in DC will take matters into their own hands to remove more of our rights. (In the name of fighting domestic terrorism.)

How can this not be obvious?

Totally see your point.. but what your describing is what's going to happen if we do nothing. But.. this could be really bad timing.

 

[lose lose win]

Their site: usborderpatrol.com