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

[jenzkc]

Mix these occupy protests with all the Democrats talking about suspending elections and asking Obama to go around congress. And now, he is doing that with executive orders. Today in Denver he said he is going to do everything he can to get things done without congress. If that isnt dictator speak, then I dont know what is.

LOL... suspend elections. You must be foreign or really stupid to think Americans wouldn't forcefully take over the government if that happened.

Its only an event for the public opinion, they wont change anything with the guys that run things over there. This is what I think.

I didn't think it mattered either, and I don't agree with all they're saying, but I'm actually starting to think this movement could turn into a black swan event. It's just not going to go away. The government is really fucking people and the point at which all of this reaches critical mass seems not too far off.

 

[lukep]

... I'm actually starting to think this movement could turn into a black swan event. It's just not going to go away. The government is really fucking people and the point at which all of this reaches critical mass seems not too far off.

I guess it's possible for them to cause a really bloody mess in their stupidity & stubborness, but the fact is that they aren't going to get anything they want at all before they are finished... They just aren't organized enough nor do they even agree at all on what they want.

It'd be like herding cats to get that diversified group to form a unified front with a common goal... Plus think about the oncoming snowfall... Think Zuccatti park can stay packed through a NYC winter?

 

[jenzkc]

Think Zuccatti park can stay packed through a NYC winter?

Well if they're desperate enough to get out there in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised. I've spent a whole day on top of a mountain in a softshell jacket with no layers underneath in a snowstorm, so I think they will be fine in a "NYC winter". Sleeping bags are warm.

 

[ck256]

I guess it's possible for them to cause a really bloody mess in their stupidity & stubborness, but the fact is that they aren't going to get anything they want at all before they are finished... They just aren't organized enough nor do they even agree at all on what they want.

It'd be like herding cats to get that diversified group to form a unified front with a common goal... Plus think about the oncoming snowfall... Think Zuccatti park can stay packed through a NYC winter?

Did the British have this same thought about the rabble across the Atlantic 200+ years ago?

 

[lukep]

Did the British have this same thought about the rabble across the Atlantic 200+ years ago?

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.

 

[MSTeacher]

Might as well be unified in wanting free unicorns.

FREE UNICORNS OMFG

 

[guerilla]

I agree with them mostly because of the primary point; that money inside of politics is poison.

My problem with you, is that you're so intelligent, but you refuse to acknowledge that the problem is political power, not the money.

Saying the money is the problem is like saying that itchy skin is the problem with flesh eating disease.

When you allow some humans to rule others against their consent (why would you need to be ruled if you consented) you force a situation where that power to dominate people becomes very valuable.

THAT attracts the money.

Don't get the money out of politics. Get the violence out of politics and the money will stop coming.

But for now? It's worth it.

Pragmatism's first victim is always principle.

Justice doesn't require strategy. Only honesty and courage.

 

[joevis]

The problem is most of the 99% will never vote yes on the things that will fix the country because they are unfortunately retarded

Do you agree that we should spend less money? Yes.

Ok we're not going going to spend any money on fireworks this year. OMG NOT THE FIREWORKS WE NEED THOSE!!!!!

There is no solution until the voting power is removed from the monkeys and given back to the handlers.

 

[lukep]

Saying the money is the problem is like saying that itchy skin is the problem with flesh eating disease.

When you allow some humans to rule others against their consent (why would you need to be ruled if you consented) you force a situation where that power to dominate people becomes very valuable.

THAT attracts the money.

Don't get the money out of politics. Get the violence out of politics and the money will stop coming.

Damn I'm torn on this one, G.
On the one hand, I know you're right overall. Of course the CURE is to do it the AnCap way. But on the other hand that seems to me like something that could never, ever, EVER come about on this sad excuse for a planet.

Wouldn't it be a 'good enough' solution to find a way to truly stop lobbying once and for all? Taking the lobby out of DC is going to solve SHITLOADS of problems we have today, simply because the gov is there for the people, not for fictitious businesses, unfairly claiming to be people.

Yeah, I know ending lobbying is not going to be anything like easy, but it's certainly got to be easier than what amounts to overthrowing the entire government.

 

[johnmatrix]

Serious fraud at Olympus alleged, share price plummets 50% as crisis escalates | EOSHD.com

Corporate greed!!

 

[guerilla]

Damn I'm torn on this one, G.
On the one hand, I know you're right overall.

/thread

j/k but I shouldnt have to j/k because there is no counter argument.

But on the other hand that seems to me like something that could never, ever, EVER come about on this sad excuse for a planet.

So the rationale is that injustice is inevitable. Ok, let's say I buy that. Then why do we need a government to stop injustice if it is inevitable? Why not try out other unjust forms, maybe one is better than the next?

The reason why people believe in government is because 16 years of public school education, and herd status signals prevent them from making critical judgments AND acting on them.

Wouldn't it be a 'good enough' solution to find a way to truly stop lobbying once and for all? Taking the lobby out of DC is going to solve SHITLOADS of problems we have today, simply because the gov is there for the people, not for fictitious businesses, unfairly claiming to be people.

If you remove lobbying, you remove the right of individuals to petition the government. You can't have WE THE PEOPLE and remove lobbying.

Look, you want a fantasy. Everyone does, particularly the OWSers. You guys want a violent government that never acts badly. If only men were angels, and if they were, we'd have no need for the state, would we?

The problem isn't lobbying. The problem is that the government owns everything, and makes every decision over law, life and death with no competition or accountability. That sort of power will attract money no matter what.

You're basically taking the drug war stance with the government. If we make lobbying illegal, it will stop. Didn't work for drugs, alcohol, sex etc. Humans have hard wired incentives, and as long as there is a gun in the room, people will be competing for who gets to point it. And they will compete with material resources, because that's our most significant and universal bargaining chip.

A rational (logically consistent) solution might be to take the gun out of the room, or disassemble it.

Yeah, I know ending lobbying is not going to be anything like easy, but it's certainly got to be easier than what amounts to overthrowing the entire government.

There will be no overthrow of government. People will continue to protest and demand, politicians will continue to lie and loot, and schools will continue to misinform and underinform people until it collapses under its own weight.

Then there will be something different. Maybe it will be a German type fascism, maybe it will be a dictatorship, maybe it will be something new.

That said, day dreaming about non-solutions and tinkering around the edges isn't a solution, and I think a lot of you engage in it because it helps you sleep at night. I can't blame you. But it's still delusional.

 

[guerilla]

Mind Projection fallacy.

What does that even mean?

 

[lukep]

So the rationale is that injustice is inevitable. Ok, let's say I buy that. Then why do we need a government to stop injustice if it is inevitable?

So we don't have to revolt and risk dying to install a new government.

If you remove lobbying, you remove the right of individuals to petition the government. You can't have WE THE PEOPLE and remove lobbying.

I'm saying we need to remove corporate personhood, not all lobbying. Get big, unfair corporate money away from DC.

The problem is that the government owns everything, and makes every decision over law, life and death with no competition or accountability. That sort of power will attract money no matter what.

Agreed completely. But I don't wish to die in a war and not see it come about, either.

There will be no overthrow of government. People will continue to protest and demand, politicians will continue to lie and loot, and schools will continue to misinform and underinform people until it collapses under its own weight.

I was referring to how one could bring about an AnCap society. Surely you don't think it could happen peacefully? (Or at all given the education level of this country?)

 

[guerilla]

So we don't have to revolt and risk dying to install a new government.

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

I'm saying we need to remove corporate personhood, not all lobbying. Get big, unfair corporate money away from DC.

How is corporate money unfair?

What is wrong with corporate personhood?

I was referring to how one could bring about an AnCap society.

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.

Thanks for not taking my previous post personally. I was trying to make a bold point.

 

[guerilla]

Let me google that for you

I didn't ask for a definition.

I asked what it meant relative to my post. Where in my post is the fallacy? Block quoting it and claiming a fallacy isn't substantive or responsive.

 

[MSTeacher]

The reason why people believe in government is because 16 years of public school education, and herd status signals prevent them from making critical judgments AND acting on them.

true for many. certainly not true for all.

If you remove lobbying, you remove the right of individuals to petition the government. You can't have WE THE PEOPLE and remove lobbying.

mm I don't know about that.

The problem is that the government owns everything, and makes every decision over law, life and death with no competition or accountability. That sort of power will attract money no matter what.

I think all power attracts money no matter what.

Are you implying that government is more fundamentally susceptible to or is a more intrinsic or primary means of expressing human injustice than money?

Humans have hard wired incentives, and as long as there is a gun in the room, people will be competing for who gets to point it. And they will compete with material resources, because that's our most significant and universal bargaining chip.

A rational (logically consistent) solution might be to take the gun out of the room, or disassemble it.

I don't read what you're saying as 'government is the gun, they're violent, take the government out of the room or dismantle the government.' I read it as, 'humans are simply violent, they will always compete to direct the violence, get rid of the mechanisms of control facilitating and directing violence.' i.e. violence is a more primary expression of humanity than is political assembly.

I then conclude that in a literal sense removing or dismantling the state gun would not address the more fundamental human expression of using violence to realize the hard wired incentives to which you referred. Accordingly the question for me then becomes, does the net presence or absence of the state contribute to or undermine the limitation of such violence expressing itself in human society.

That said, day dreaming about non-solutions and tinkering around the edges isn't a solution, and I think a lot of you engage in it because it helps you sleep at night. I can't blame you. But it's still delusional.

compared to what

 

[MSTeacher]

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.

I completely agree. Humanity isn't ready to pull some shit off like this right now and keep it working. A single prosperous high society operating at or above first world status without government would take a shitload of diligence that we just don't have at the moment. I get the feeling that a complex and integrated world of like manner is a long, long way off.

 

[guerilla]

I think all power attracts money no matter what.

That is my fundamental point.

Are you implying that government is more fundamentally susceptible to or is a more intrinsic or primary means of expressing human injustice than money?

Money is just a store of value and a means of exchange. Most peopledon't understand what money is.

Look, money in and of itself is neutral. How it is used is the problem. Being more materially wealthy solves all sorts of problems with health, diet, education, life expectancy, infant mortality etc. People who reject material wealth are either stupid or dishonest. In either case, they are dangerous.

I don't read what you're saying as 'government is the gun, they're violent, take the government out of the room or dismantle the government.' I read it as, 'humans are simply violent, they will always compete to direct the violence, get rid of the mechanisms of control facilitating and directing violence.' i.e. violence is a more primary expression of humanity than is political assembly.

You have a nuanced understanding of what I am saying.

I then conclude that in a literal sense removing or dismantling the state gun would not address the more fundamental human expression of using violence to realize the hard wired incentives to which you referred.

Uhm, I take my last sentence back. If you know men are dangerous and violent, why give them an institutional monopoly over everyone to practice those antisocial tendencies?

We accept man is violent. We accept there are ways to deal with that. Creating a wholly corrupt central authority removes any opportunity for meaningful reform, lacks market competition and legal accountability (because they are the arbiters of what is and is not legal).

Accordingly the question for me then becomes, does the net presence or absence of the state contribute to or undermine the limitation of such violence expressing itself in human society.

Let's play along with this, despite the fact I think it is cognitive dissonance. 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?

compared to what

Delusions aren't relative.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Saying the money is the problem is like saying that itchy skin is the problem with flesh eating disease.

When you allow some humans to rule others against their consent (why would you need to be ruled if you consented) you force a situation where that power to dominate people becomes very valuable.

THAT attracts the money.

Don't get the money out of politics. Get the violence out of politics and the money will stop coming.

See, you view it as government is the crux of the problem, not money. I view it the other way around, and honestly, so does history. Regardless of what type of civilization we setup, humans will always remain intrinsically greedy, and money fills this hunger.

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. 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.

You'll end up with militias all over the US fighting over resources, some cities will become wholly owned subsidiaries of the KKK for example, etc. You'll also probably have corporations like ExxonMobil and Walmart either starting their own militaries, or contracting out. After all, no government, so no negotiations required, so just enter the country, mow everyone over, and take the resources you want. Hell, no Geneva Convention to adhere to, so why not? Domestic consumers won't give a shit, because since there's no regulations on monopolies, the media will be even more monopolized than it already is, so you just talk to your buddies over there to keep it hush, hush. Besides, nobody will care when they're saving $0.10/gallon on gas, and 5% on cheap furniture.

Removing the government all together isn't going to change the fact a small percentage of the population wish to control, and a majority of the population wish to be led. That's simply how humans tick. Your argument somewhat seems to ignore almost every historical moment in human civilization, as if it wouldn't repeat itself if we dismantled everything, or something.

 

[secretagentdad]

because since there's no regulations on monopolies, the media will be even more monopolized than it already is.

waawwaaa wut

even 2am friday night me can tell you what a load of shit that is.