Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by angelofdeath

  1. You could just as easily call them "Bushtowns" and probably be more accurate to boot. (Not that I'm sticking up for Obama, but if we're going to point fingers....)


    true, we could also call them 'greenspanvilles' or 'bernankevilles.' but the guy at the helm when the camps start is the guy who they should be named after. ala hoovervilles.


    There was a list of demands made at the beginning of the OWS movement. Im somewhat glad nobody references it because the way it was written sucked. Some factual inaccuracies, referenced wallstreet, banks, the government etc as "THEY," which sounds conspiratorial and uninformed. That doesn't make the list of demands invalid, it just means it needs to be rewritten and "Needs better education" should be added to that list.


    i reference it all the time. to me, it immediately discredited the movement, as if it didnt need it already. all you have to do is talk to the average protester to find out that those demands of 'elimination of debt' and 'free college education' and the like are generally what the OWS is all about.




    Regan, Clinton, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations ALL were pushing home ownership. But we being the greedy retards saw everyone buying houses and got into the habit of "Flipping homes." No longer were people buying houses for the practical purpose of living in. People were buying them to stack and trade like baseball cards. Think about how many House Flipping shows were on TV. Nobody understood that the housing market was artificially inflated. Around 2008 was when banks were giving people loans of up to 100% of the house's worth. That means with no down payment nobody had anything to lose by walking away from it, which people did.


    the home ownership society and the policies instituted by government were started WAY before reagan.

    you have to ask why people were flipping homes? why were banks giving these crazy loans? because of cheap artificially low credit from the FED, and because of government guarantees on the loans, and because of various laws and regulations that coerced banks to make risky loans. couple with the overall moral hazard of the guarantee that if the gambled, the tax payer would bail everyone out. what a scenario for reckless behavior.


    the market ALWAYS wanted 20% down and solid income. then came the govt saying banks were to 'stingy' and started forcing them to loan to risky buyers.



    So everybody was doing better than they were actually doing. Now that everybody's doing EXACTLY how they're actually doing theres a bit of discontent. That's problem number 1. Mortgage backed securities were by far the most poorly designed investment Wallstreet has ever created. Thats an undisputed fact, so it's VERY easy to pin this whole economic recession on Wallstreet when Presidential administrations, homeowner unions and so on all have a piece of the fault.


    if govt didnt create the scenario to allow these mortgage backed securities, they would of never happened. why didnt they happen back in the early 80's when interest rates were 18% and no one could get a lone without 20% down?


    but you are 100% correct. the housing boom= illusion. the charade is over.


    And keep in mind MOST historians and economists look at the Great Depression and say it never would've happened if the government and the Fed bailed out banks. So what did we do this time? We fucking bailed them out. Obama set into motion a 700 BILLION stimulus with the idea in mind that a chunk of it would go building local solar power companies and training high school grads how to install solar panels, other money would go to banks that needed more capital to cover the mortgage backed securities, other money would go to successful banks so that they could GROW and create more jobs. Other money would go to american car makers if they created green electric vehicles.... When that stimulus package first came out it was one of the most exciting things to have ever been done in a very, very long time.


    the stimulus just allowed banks to keep on behaving the same way they would have.

    only the economically illiterate would think that the great depression would of never happened if they just bailed out the banks. it would of just stacked the house of cards higher and tried to prop up something that should of failed. all caused by the FED.


    But that's not how it played out. SOME banks took that stimulus money and bought a few failed banks, which was a good thing, but the problem with other banks, and especially american auto makers, was that they didn't change their incompetent administration around, they just gave their CEOS bigger salaries. Jobs weren't created. Jobs haven't been created. Jobs continue not to be created. This is problem number 2.


    what do you expect when you give failed companies billions to keep doing what they were doing?



    Problem number four is that the economy is growing slower than the population.


    thanks to a govt tax and regulatory bureaucracy unlike the world has never seen.


    Its the whole unfair mix of corporations, lobbyists and politicians running the country when what people want are politicians that represent them, corporations that represent them, and the two should never fucking meet.


    im in favor of separation of corporation and state for sure. the problem is, as long as govt has the power to issue favors, hand outs, regulations written by the revolving door phenomenon, welfare, and basically does anything other than protecting liberty and liberty, protecting property and prosecuting fraud and invasions of life, liberty and property.....we will have people lobbying government. the problem with the left is that they think they can just take over the ship of state and only dole out these favors to the 'poor.' you must get rid of the principle of government giving favors all together to eliminate corporate control of various aspects of government.


    There's a lot of idiots that run ineffectively run unions, give unqualified people the wrong jobs, over pay some, underpay others.... To me it doesn't seem like Occupy Wallstreeters who are demanding equality and fair wages would WANT to side on the side with unions. Historically it makes sense because labor unions historically fight for fair wages, but even still.... Have they created fair wages amongst union workers, or are union leaders living fat off backs of others?


    OWS would do good to start trashing unions. it would lend to their credibility. turning over GM to the unions so they can run it further into the ground isnt going to help their case.

    unions, by their very nature are run by idiots, foster inefficiency, protect those that sleep on the job from getting fired, make it impossible to fire horrible teachers, etc. it is what they do. they are a cartel with a legal right to force their will on others. protesters defending unions and their special influence is no different than corporations influencing government for their special favors.

  3. And unemployment among college grads in america is only 2%. Nobody with a college education in america is worried about not finding work.


    hahahaahaha, really? really? no unemployed college grads?

    maybe if you dont consider that they are just taking jobs that they are WAY over qualified for, 'unemployment' is low.


    i know someone who has 200K of law school debt, couldnt find a job for 2.5 years years, and ended up working as a secretary somewhere making 20K a year. i guess she is 'employed' but her situation hardly seems like a good place to be.

  4. What does that mean, own your own body? I guess I own my own body, but what's stopping a horde of barbarians from skinning me? Nothing, if I'm alone. What's protecting that same horde of barbarians from skinning each other? The laws of the tribe. Get it? Owning your own body is just free will. Rights are given to you by the society you're attempting to alienate yourself from.


    no one is trying to 'alienate themselves from society.' society and a government are not the same thing. a government is a coercive body with a legal monopoly on force that rules over a tax jurisdiction.

    you think a law written on a piece of paper is stopping a barbarian horde? really? why does only a govt law stop this horde, why cant private defense handle this? can i carry a side arm in 'your society' in order to defend myself or do i need to carry a police in my pick up truck bed? if i was really concerned about a barbarian horde, i would situate my life to where this horde would suffer more loss than i was worth. one doesnt need a government to protect them. in fact, govt has stacked up 260 million corpses as their victims in the 20th century alone, in non military action. if anything, this 'society' (government) you speak of is the body people have to be worried about.


    you are fundamentally confusing a natural right with services provided that protects natural rights. natural rights cannot be taken away. even if you are enslaved, you have the right to be free. just so happens someone is infringing on your rights. which is why we have self defense. one must be prepared to defend themselves just like they must be prepared to fix an automobile if it breaks. are you going to suggest we need a government to provide auto services as well? did this 'society' just grant you the right to repair a car?


    you still have not chosen to answer whether your 'society' will be voluntary or not. whether everyone is subject to the rule of this majority even if they choose to not partake. why wont you answer this? does it paint your democracy in a bad light and expose the gun and the force behind your ideology? i can full well live in society, trade peaceably with others, help people, live my life and otherwise interact voluntarily. you dont need to submit to a coercive monopoly on force to be part of 'society.'


    if you do not believe that chattel slaves have a fundamental right to be free because the 'society' they are 'living' in says they should be enslaved, i just dont know what to say.

  5. Diggers[/url], who I'm pretty sure you won't have much affinity with but that's okay.


    I don't want to get sucked into a debate about my politics because that's not what this is about. It might help if everyone were to set aside the politics and economic theory for a minute, look at what people are doing, and how big of a shift in the zeitgeist had to take place in the past three months for them to take action. You can superimpose whatever you want onto whatever occupation you want, but if you're looking for clarity regarding the motive that won't help.


    Hopefully that was clear enough. Anyway....


    I've been saying this a lot since Wednesday, and I'll say it again- what happened after the strike had nothing to do with the folks who have been holding down the park. In fact, I went downtown and helped clean up the mess in the rain with about 40 other people...buffing graffiti voluntarily was not as weird as I thought it would be since I felt like I had to prove that I wasn't an dumbass and I actually cared about my city.


    Which I do. And I care about my community and my friends and that's why I'm doing this.


    In other news I went to SF and checked out their camp, wound up getting stranded and sleeping outside in the rain. For some reason I'm not mad about this...I got to show them some support, and I gained some perspective on how good we have it here in Oakland.


    Speaking strictly for myself, my mood and outlook on the world has drastically improved in the past couple months. I mean, I'm still a cynical asshole but I'm nowhere near as bummed out as I was at the end of August.


    i dont know brother. it just seems fruitless if there isnt a clear objective. it seems like its just people out protesting to protest just for the hell of it, but if no one knows what they are protesting, whats the point? whats the point of shutting down a port? whats the point of camping out? there was a raw milk activist who recently went on a month long fast, he finally started eating when the regulatory body gave their word they would talk to them. i used to admire the anti war activity. it had a forward message of end the war first and foremost. these occupy things are like social events framed as 'doing something.'


    even the tea party crowd had basic objectives and were calling for a redress of grievances, however fruitless that may be. occupy just seems to be protesting markets in general. i just dont get what the goal is. shutting down all commerce? destroying capitalism? beheading the rich? seizing wealth? over throwing the govt? the protests im more in line with are getting govt off everyones back. seems like most of the occupy people just want to take control of the ship of state, remove the corporate influence and then use the state to THEIR advantage. i have no interest in doing that.


    one thing does make me LOLZ. i realize that most of the occupy movement are using the black bloc tactics, etc. but it does make me laugh because it wasnt to long ago when the same lefties that are part of the occupy crowd were calling anyone who went to a ron paul rally or gun rally to be racists or neo nazi's. they seem to be getting a dose of their own medicine when everyone is saying that occupiers are all vandals, 'anarchists' and arsonists.

  6. Coercion suggests that there is no logical reason for someone to participate in the system, and that you are being forced against your will to participate.


    it doesnt have to be a 'logical reason' it can be ANY reason.

    so by default a system that you support that forces people like myself and franktronic to participate is nothing but a system based on slavery.


    i know i've posted this on this forum before, but you must read this and you must tell me how your system is different:






    I've got a better example. I'm a motorcyclist. In America only about 6% of the population owns a motorcycle, and only about 2% of the commuting landscape ARE motorcycles. Thats an incredibly small amount of the population, and yet motorcycles are involved in about 30% of vehicle collisions with other vehicles, and account for most of the vehicle-related deaths. Its entirely conceivable that a hypothetical, "United States General Assembly" would vote to ban motorcycles from public roads. I think most motorcyclists would be ok with that since the general contingent of hardcore motorcyclists really only ride on the track anyway. So what about me? I fucking hate being stuck in traffic or in a car and only commute by motorcycle. For most people I'm just being an eccentric retard with a death wish, but I see it as a lifestyle that I can't live without. How do I get everyone on my side? It's not like I can show them my accident record since I've been involved in a pretty serious collision that was utterly my fault.


    How do you think I should handle that? First off I'd like to point out that at least I have a method of legal recourse. I can take it up with the general assembly. I can directly voice my concerns and the data showing it's not the bike's fault. It's the lack of driver's ed and safety courses. It's the lack of traction control and computerized braking assistance. I have an entire forum to discuss the environmental impacts of the alternatives to motorcycles, the jobs that would be killed and so on.


    Right now my only recourse is to join a Motorcycle union, lobby some motorcycle riding politician, give him all my money to assure he does the right thing and so on. And in the end, no matter what the decision is ALL information would be consumed by everyone. I would not have been disenfranchised. Everyone would be able to live with the decision for as long as we decided to live with it.

    I see every incentive to vote in a participatory democracy. I see no incentive for a minority to vote in a democratic republic.



    so what you are saying, as ive stated before that you will not out and out admit is that its totally 100% fine to take away someones rights if a bunch of people decide to do it. and since you voted on the matter, you voiced your opinion, you have not had your rights taken.


    this is silliest logic i have ever heard.


    how about this solution...instead of changing the current system where you need to lobby politicians to exercise your natural rights to one where you get to put forth a little case in front of the body of tyranny yourself and get to cast your one vote against the 90%, why not just tell the govt to F off, be like ghandi and tell them they can kill you but they'll never have your obedience, channel michael collins and refuse to ever comply and defend your natural rights? how about supporting the position that anyone should be able to opt out if they want to?




    It makes sense for you to want anarchy since you've also been talking about unregulated free market capitalism. The issue with both is, like you said, there's nothing stopping the anarchistic society from violently forcing their will on that smaller faction until it's no longer financially viable to do so, the bigger society collapses under its own weight, and presumably everybody has learned something.



    nation states are tax jurisdictions. what exactly is keeping the current system of top down govt largesse from enforcing their will violently on the smaller factions?



    i'll ask it again, is your direct democracy, voluntary? can one choose not to consent? tell me how this is different than what we currently have?


    why dont you just leave me alone and i'll let you have your 90% majority.


    the reason why the left sees democracy as a force of good is because they are around a bunch of other lefties, the free stuff army, etc that have no problem with using govt to redistribute wealth, enforce their will on others, etc because its what large groups of the population want. large portions of the population also thought blacks were only fit to be chattel slaves . they have no problem violating peoples rights to get what they want. if 90% of the american population were in favor of limited or no government, i think the direct democracy supporters would change their position completely about violating the rights of the minority. its always great to preach about what the 'majority' wants until you become the minority. your system sounds worse for the prospects of individual freedom than the current US govt arrangement is.

  8. What rights do you think you have? Just out of curiosity, because by definition rights are given to you by everyone else. You dont have any rights out in the woods. A bear doesn't know you have rights. A tree falling on your house doesn't know you have rights. If you expatriate yourself from every other community, you dont have any rights at all.


    so what you are suggesting is that you personally dont own your own body.


    every person on this planet has the right to do whatever they want, so long as they dont interfere or aggress against another's rights.


    no, rights are not given to you by everyone else. they exist as part of your humanity. you are trying to say that 'rights' are positive. that there is such a thing as a a right to have someone else pay for your healthcare or for someone else to pay for your education. i say we have negative rights. you dont mess with me, i wont mess with you. if anyone initiates force against you, then you can defend yourself. society does not give you rights.


    community and government are 2 entirely different things. one is voluntary, the other isnt. i dont need any other people to tell me i have the right to life, liberty and property. it exists as part of my humanity. i think attempting to compare inanimate objects and lesser than human life forms to humans is rather silly.


    i take what the declaration of independence says literally. people are endowed by their creator (another way of saying 'as part of their humanity) with inalienable rights.

  9. libertarians are fucking crybabies.


    taxes are theft. i'm not free because i can't own my own m2 50 cal to protect my property in my own special unnecessary way. i should be allowed to dump whatever i want into the earth if i own that acre of land.




    you want to be a part of society, there are going to be sacrifices you make. or get the fuck off the grid and stop crying. i'm done with crossfire for a while, this rhetoric and line of reason aggravates the hell out of me.


    ahh...wahhhh....those damn slaves were cry babies! look, they had food, clothing, and a free place to stay! if they want to be part of society its just the sacrifices they have to make!


    i think many would 'be off the grid' if you and your govt's would leave people alone. did it ever occur that the reason why the 'fucking crybabies' dont secede from govt rules is because....wait for it..... ITS ILLEGAL? and resistance to the state will get you killed.

  10. by the 'love it or leave it argument' i am talking about the old right wing come back to the anti war protesters. 'why are you protesting, dont you love america? if you dont like it, GTFO.' its always interesting to hear this logic coming from the left, given that they used to think the love it or leave it rhetoric was silly.


    what im telling you is that, no 'general assembly' has ANY authority over my rights AT ALL. its sort of like you are saying that the general assembly owns me, but we are just dickering over the details of what im being forced to do. sort of like....'you can do whatever you want, as long as well all agree to let you.'


    my point is i own myself. i dont want to be part of your general assembly and it has no jurisdiction over me. i dont want to go to any meetings and i dont want to vote. i want to be left alone. now, if YOU want to be part of this general assembly, that is your right. and i would never use force against you. all im asking is you to afford me the same courtesy. if you want to make participation in this new form of statism voluntary, then im 100% in favor of your doing it. but the moment you start forcing a freedom loving people under its dictates and start talking about how we are subject to these 90%'ers whims no matter what, BUT we get to vote on it.... is no different than nozick's famous 'tale of a slave.'

  11. Lets say, theoretically we lived in a country ran by the general assembly. You went to the committee and said "I want my own land to develop a lifestyle of self sustainability. I ask for nothing else and will give nothing in return."


    How do you see that playing out?


    uhhh... i think we know the answer to that and this is the issue at hand.

    the argument you are trying to put forward is largely circular. its sort of like the 'love it or leave it' argument. in fact it is the love it or leave it argument.

    the issue is whether the 'general assembly' has a right to rule in the first place. i say it doesnt. and in essence you say it does and if i dont like it, i must go.


    i wonder if you would ask native americans who have just been subjected to british and french colonial (or later american) rule and genocide that same question you posed to me.

  12. "or you need to allow for people to opt out of the voting process and, by extension, the jurisdiction of the vote."



    very very very very very very very very very well put.


    however trying to convince soup that people should be able opt out of his 'democratic majority rule' paradigm is like trying to convince a slave owner to just let his slaves free. they believe in force. they believe in mandatory compliance with their edicts. they believe that a mythical percentage of people have a right to govern and essentially own and control other human beings. simply because they got together and formed a 'consensus' and declared this democratic polity to be the owner and controller of the tax cows on the feed lot.

  13. If me and 90% of the country voted to kill you on the grounds that we want your stuff, I wouldn't. Why? Self interest. We'd be setting a precedence that it's ok to randomly select members of the community, have them killed and rob them. Everyone including me would fear who would be next. Plus wed have to divvy your things up evenly amongst the community so id barely get anythimg. Plus

    How many people would we disenfranchise in the process? You have to remember that it's not 90% of all he decisions. It's everyone making all the decisions.


    well, i dont you or 90% or 99% making ANY of my decisions. how about this, you leave me alone and i'll leave you alone? deal? i would never use force against you for camping out with your friends in city parks, and talking about the class struggle. but the moment you try to use force against me in the form of voting for politicians who then direct guys in badges to come and extract my money to pay for your kids schooling, your grand parents retirement, or for your healthcare, then we have a problem.


    its quite odd that you selected that type of reasoning. because this very second, 'the majority' has voted in a govt that taxes people, takes their income, (THEFT) and they have no choice in the matter.

    so your scenario is already happening and the majority is already forcing people to conform to their whims in a myriad of ways. stuff is already being taken.



    And three robbers don't represent a community so that's not a realistic example. Plus thats only a 75% vote and not enough for concensus.


    i love how you try to theorize so much on this, but the fact remains, that your belief set ALLOWS for rights to be violated, simply if other people want it.

    for instance, since you choose to ignore my example that totally smashed your logic, lets try it another way.

    im sure you have no problem if instead of the 3 robbers killing you, 90% of the 'community' or lets say the country, vote to extract every single bit of wealth of those making over 500K a year. this is 'social justice' to you im sure, yet i see it as nothing but theft.


    Also start thinking about what you think 90% of America would actually agree upon. Or since this i a global movement, think about what 90% of the planet would agree upon. They'd have to be some pretty basic instinctual tenants of society like the golden rule.


    i could care less what 90% of the people agree upon. i only want to be left the fuck alone. i dont want any 90% telling me what to do in any way shape or form. im sure you could get 90% of the people to agree that theft by the state, i.e. taxation, is not theft. im sure you could of gotten 90% of the people 15,000 years ago to agree that slavery is legitimate. i contend initiating force against others is wrong, and it doesnt matter if its some how legitimized by a bunch of people supporting the use of force. its not legitimized. the basic leftist theory sort of goes like this:

    voluntary contracts and interactions are wrong and exploitative, but social contracts pulled out of 90% of the populations ass that force others to take part in the agreement who dont want to, are totally legitimate.


    Onh and 90% is unanimous consent. If I vote no but agree to put it to a vote and if 90% of the population want something then I'm probably being unreasonable, that's me consenting.



    you are probably being unreasonable. hahaha. this made my night.

    those silly explorers back in the day who said the earth was round....and those 90% who said they were heretics and stupid idiots....yeah, those silly round earthers were just being unreasonable. those silly slaves who objected to being enslaved, but the 90% of slave owners said the slaves belonged there ....yup, those damn slaves were just being unreasonable!

  14. What am I trying to accomplish? I see something good happening in my city and I want to help out.


    Since I'm not easily bought or sold, I have no demands nor am I trying to win anything. I just happen to have skills that apply to the situation so I'm putting my efforts there while seeing everything strictly from my own point of view.


    People are finally beginning to set class issues aside and talk about what's affecting them, which is something I've been waiting for my whole life. So if there was anything I would like to accomplish, it would be to keep that going....communication is easily the biggest threat there is, plus it's easy and (usually) free.


    I would say my personal politics are not exactly in line with what most of the people downtown believe but that's not up for discussion most of the time. Usually we're too busy trying to figure out what the next move is going to be.


    That's pretty much what it comes down to...I'm too busy to worry about the details, there's shit that needs to get done and I needed something to do that was in line with some of my ideals.


    so you are pretty much just getting wild, to get wild with no reason behind it. got ya.


    so are you the anti capitalist property destroying type or the camping out type?


    at least when the bonus army was camping out in DC, they wanted their bonuses they were promised. it seems OWS is camping out until capitalism is overthrown or at least until they get the Free Stuff Army gets their peice of the pie, their legislation enacted to cripple others in the name of democracy, and the like.

  15. thanks for further supporting my original views on the OWS, mercer. i find it funny that people keep trying to tell me that OWS means something totally different than what is being represented at the events.

  16. i didnt mean that its taking a long time to accomplish anything, i mean that shutting down a port is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.


    i dont think shutting down ports, breaking whole foods and wells fargo windows and destroying property is making me believe that this 'cause' is worth fighting for. i dont even understand what its trying to accomplish. i dont see how trying to destroy markets and disrupt commerce is any how remotely related to bringing liberty to americans.


    lets hope the koreans that were shooting at people after the riots in the 90's dont start defending themselves again.

    but since you are actively involved in this, and seem to be halfway knowledgeable about stuff, i'd be interested in hearing exactly what you are trying to accomplish. what exactly you are protesting. and exactly what your 'demands' are and what is the indicator that you have 'won.'

  17. Idk what these protests are accomplishing? I dont get it? What does it do for anyone? What did shutting down the port in oakland accomplish? All I can think of is disruption of a major cash flow into oakland. How does stopping money coming into our city help it?


    from what i see, its just about people getting pissed and just flailing their arms wildly and spinning their wheels not really accomplishing anything. they should be occupying the inside of the state capitols, courthouses and federal reserve buildings with rifles if they wish to accomplish anything and take on the real enemy of the people.

  18. There is Marxist rhetoric, but also libertarian rhetoric, and sometimes both at the same time. It's a democracy so those who vote early and often move the occupation in that direction.


    And mob rule is a term used by Aristotelian ruling classes to describe civil disobedience. When the ruling class is 90% of the population there's no mob. Your biggest issue becomes making everyone as educated as everyone else. That's why discussion is so important to OWS. And if anything that OWS does disenfranchises anyone, all you need to do is show up at the general assembly and voice your case. Like all democracies, if you don't vote, chances are you won't like the outcome.


    despite this voting nonsense, the majority can still take my rights. why do you refuse to acknowledge this?


    what does it matter if 90% vote to kill me and i vote not to? im still dead. my position is my life isnt up for a vote. you think people should be able to decide what rights people have and force everyone into this mold. this is very dangerous, it is very tyrannical and very anti liberty.


    im 100% in favor of civil disobedience. im simply not in favor of 90% of the population forcing their will on others. and why is it 90%? why not 50.00000000000001%? the only 'democracy' im in favor of is unanimous consent. if someone doesnt consent, they should be exempt from what ever policy, action, whatever the 'mob' wants. that is liberty.


    lets illustrate this:


    3 robbers walk up to you door. they demand your stuff or your life. you say, GTFO. they say, well, wait here a second, we are democratically inclined philosophical robbers. lets put this to a vote. we heard you favor democracy. 3 robbers vote to take your stuff. you vote no. they take your stuff. because you are on this nonsense about 'democracy' you must let them. i would shoot back. see the difference? i defend liberty, you defend whatever the majority wants.


    *feel free to insert something about how the majority would never do that right about now* (even though that is what government through democracy does every day...takes peoples property and rights at gun point)

  19. OWS isnt looking to the government to solve the problems on wall street. Basically the opinions of individuals does t really matter, because this isn't a movement, it's a venue for a new form of paticipatory democracy. The only things anyone has really agreed upon is that corporate personhood and the private sector controlling the public sector isnt good. Everything else is stlil in the air. I personally don't agree with 90% of the shit I hear, but I'm more than happy to put it up to a vote and if 90% agree with something I'll let it stand. If 90 of the country wanted to burn down all the middle schools and put 11-13 year old at work in the fields I'd be for it.


    this is the problem and is exactly why i view OWS as i do.

    'participatory democracy' is nothing but a fancy word for force. in reality it means if 90% of the country wants to rob the other 10%, its all good. if 90% of the country wants to enslave the other 10% its ok. democracy is a very bad form of government as it has absolutely no respect for individual liberty. it is literally mob rule.


    i agree there isnt one unified position with all the protesters. however, of all the exchanges and all the people speaking at these events, one thing is clear, the rhetoric is generally marxist. the rhetoric demonizes capitalism and the entrepreneur and demonizes any one who has succeeded. all the people i've heard talking are calling for some form of control on freedom in one way or another.

    i dont think there is much denying that corporations have a huge influence in the political theater. but i find an opposite solution than what most OWS types do. i say dont let govt have the power to do what they do for corporations. if you concede to let government have the power to bail people out, they will do it, even if the power is only for the 'poor' to be bailed out. i say get rid of the power to bail out corporations as well as any other mercantilist policy. lets not forget, crony capitalism is exactly what spawned adam smith's book, wealth of nations. so im with you on the crony capitalist part, but where we differ is thinking the state or any form of 'participatory democracy' can 'fix' these issues.


    as for the corporate personhood thing, i think this needs to be defined. it sounds good on the surface, but it also means that the mom and pop gas station on the corner, because they are a 'corporation' cant put a sign up in the yard saying *insert whatever here.* or they cant use the property in a certain way, or whatever. I do agree the govt grants corporations liability protection which wouldnt exist in the free market. but simply saying that a group of people that call themselves a 'corporation' have no rights just needs to be defined before i could form an alliance with these people @ OWS on this issue. does this also mean that any news corporation like the NY times or huffington post can no longer exist, because they are exercising free speech? the overall theme seems to be that citizens united needs to be over turned, when all this did was made it legal for a group of people to put out a movie about a political candidate around election time. i dont see how in the world, the left couldnt support this all around. the aclu did from what i recall, because the first amendment says 'congress shall write no law....' not 'congress shall write no law abridging free speech or the press, unless you are a group of people other groups of people dont like.'

    • Like 1
  20. in theory our government equally represents the best interests of the citizens, (real people, not corporation-people)


    in reality, it never does that


    in reality our government represents the best interests of the corporations and banks.




    in reality a corporations primary concerns are profit and expansion.


    true. how do they profit? by satisfying consumers, UNLESS they seek to use the state to get favors, corporate welfare, monopoly protections, protection from competition and regulations (they necessarily benefit bigger guys over smaller guys), etc.


    this isn't circular reasoning. corporations, by nature, don't care about the citizens. our government, by corruption, doesn't care about the citizens.


    i'd argue govt by nature doesnt care about citizens. if they DID, they wouldnt be going around the world fighting 'tyranny' they'd turn the guns on themselves and let americans live free once again.

    the key point is a corporation exercises no control over a people. walmart isnt locking up the protesters and shooting them with rubber bullets. walmart isnt hiring cops arresting people for camping in public parks. for some reason, the more statist type ideologues cannot grasp that there is a HUGE difference between being beaten, robbed or raped, and walmart existing and enticing you with cheap chinese junk that you are perfectly free not to buy.


    corporations must satisfy their customers if they are to stay in business and no one forces anyone to deal with any corporation, UNLESS you want to talk about govt taking your money to bail out GM or *insert company du jour*

    governments necessarily exist to infringe on freedom. they are truly the negation of liberty.


    reform and regulation are a must.


    im in favor of regulation, its just a matter of who does the regulating that i take issue with. if the market regulated the banking sector, we wouldnt have moral hazard, we wouldnt have bail outs and banks who engaged in bad practices, would be out of business. this is a much harsher 'regulation' than incentivizing banks to engage in bad risky behavior with no fear of loss because of implicit bail out agreements, bailing them out when they gambled and lost, and letting them keep on doing the same thing.

    absent the federal reserve and federal regulatory apparatus, there wouldnt of been a crisis and there would be no OWS. govt is always regulating the last crisis that they caused. they continually closed the barn doors after the horses got out. every intervention = 10 more unintended consquences that must then be corrected by 10 more laws for each problem. they are simply diseases masquerading as their own cure. they are breaking peoples legs, handing them crutches and then saying...'see, if it wasnt for us, you wouldnt be able to walk!' its insane and people need to take off the class warfare blinders and open their eyes, and finally, embrace freedom.


    i think deep down, the OWS peeps are capitalists at heart, they just dont know it yet. years of indoctrination by govt schools and media complex have turned americans into marxists. they are protesting some legitimate things. however, they need to realize they are protesting fascism and not capitalism and laissez faire.


    one thing is for sure, this seems to be the first stages of the real collapse. riots will be next.

  21. i dont know man, anything moore gets attached to would immediately be discredited.


    but that being said, all one has to do is listen to the average occupier to know that the movement has already been discredited. when ones entire belief system is based on class warfare and jealousy, they dont really bring anything to the table. the basis premise they hold is as follows:


    corporations control the govt. (cant really deny that)


    so we need the govt to control the corporations. (a bit circular, no?)


    we are protesting corporations, yet the corporations arent the ones throwing us in jail, maiming us, shooting people in the head till they are brain dead with rubber rounds, enforcing stupid govt laws against what we are doing.


    govt can save us.


    to me, that logic just makes absofuckinglutely no g'damn sense whatsoever.

  • Create New...