Occupy Wall Street

[angelofdeath]

If an individual wants to make a payment to a politician or political party then they should have to do it from their personal money, it shouldn't come from a business, it should be fully transparent and should always be made public record.

 

i think the entire theory isnt on a sound footing.

what if said business owner doesnt take any income? what if its just one person? it seems absolutely silly to think that as soon as someone hangs a shingle outside their property and says they are in business selling fruit and vegetables that no longer have rights. that the business owner cannot use income generated for whatever purpose he desires.

what if the business owner takes ALL the money out of the business that was generated under its business status, and then uses it to influence the election by campaign contributions? owning a business is just like owning a bank account or stocks. the person who OWNS it, OWNS it. should we eliminate money from bank accounts and stock income from the list of prohibited contributors?

 

I fully understand that a corporation is made up of individuals but that doesn't mean as a business it still holds the same rights as an individual, this also goes for small businesses with maybe only 2 or 3 employees.

 

so are you in favor of shutting down the new york times because this business is exercising certain 'rights' and engaging in activities related to free press and free speech rights?

 

People working within a business do not have the same rights as others working there, a boss can dictate to the workers what they need to do but a worker cannot dictate to the boss, similarly if the business has free speech and can then say whatever it wants, it isn't talking as a collective viewpoint of the individuals it is the company line, the management views, so if the individuals who work for the company arent equal then how can I say that a business has the same rights as an individual.

 

you are trying to take the conversation on a convoluted theory of rights. of course if you are voluntary under someone elses control, you voluntarily cede your rights. if i come over your house and i take out a bull horn and start reading the declaration of independence to you, you can tell me to GTFO. if i refuse, you can forcibly remove me.

you are trying to say that if i form a business. i incorporate, i am the sole share holder and i am 1 of 2 employees that i some how no longer have rights? that i cant put a sign out front of the building lot advertising my work? if i hire a subcontractor to do work for me, i hire him specifically to do that work. i do not have to ask his permission what i put on my sign out front, i am doing the work, i will put the sign out front. employees are hired to do a certain job. it is a voluntary contract. in the same way i can tell an employee to GTFO, he can leave voluntarily. If he doesnt like a business practice i engage in, he is free to leave, i am free to fire him.

 

do families also not have rights? after all its a group of people, 'profiting' with voluntary cooperation. what if you hire a maid to clean the house, and you put out an election sign out front supporting the local anarchist and she doesnt like it. do you really think that we need govt to come into this voluntary arrangement, say that the group doesnt have rights, and some how force the maid to have an equal say in what goes out in the front yard?

cmon. its ludicrous.

 

think about it this way. a local OWS group all gets together. they pool their money and they put out an ad in the paper or the local news station. they sign it 'from occupy _________'

according to the liberal theory this is illegitimate because this group of people do not have rights. ban the ad.

[Decyferon]

the busines owner has rights as an individual, his company doesn't. I just dont understand how people can't see the difference. Political donations would have to come from his personal bank accounts NOT his business accounts, he would have to put his personal details as the contributor not hide behind a business name. But all that is beside the point corporations are not people.

 

To say that a bank has the same rights as I do is stupid, if it was then it would have to comply with all the rules I do, such as working regulations, if that single company is the same as an individual then it isn't allowed to work over x amount of hours per week then it would have to close it doors and business after reaching that numder of hours. Should companies be allowed to adopt children then? they are individuals after all.

[MOOGLE?]

inb4 buffet talk

[angelofdeath]

the busines owner has rights as an individual, his company doesn't. I just dont understand how people can't see the difference. Political donations would have to come from his personal bank accounts NOT his business accounts, he would have to put his personal details as the contributor not hide behind a business name. But all that is beside the point corporations are not people.

 

To say that a bank has the same rights as I do is stupid, if it was then it would have to comply with all the rules I do, such as working regulations, if that single company is the same as an individual then it isn't allowed to work over x amount of hours per week then it would have to close it doors and business after reaching that numder of hours. Should companies be allowed to adopt children then? they are individuals after all.

 

since you choose not to take into account that your stand is hypocritical and are choosing to base your entire case on the fact that a 'business' engages in 'for profit' activities and that makes this GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS not have any rights, there is no use going any further on that. a corporation is nothing but a group. if you really believe that this group of people doesnt have any rights, why arent you calling for abolition of the new york times? the bbc? any news corporation is engaging in practices they do have a right to be doing. period. please call for their disbandment. please also call for the disbanding of any anti corporate leftist groups that put out anti corporation messages, they are engaging in rights they do not have.

 

the entire case against a group of people having rights by the left is in its relationship to elections. why is this an understandably big concern? why is this so important, because they seek to influence a government that has coercive power over people. in essence, seeking govt power is seeking legal authority to enforce your will on others. because we have allowed a government to exist that knows no limits to its own powers. because of this, we have a government that can be bought off. think of the govt as a honey pot. if you keep this honey pot and allow everyone to have a portion, you have the current government special interest/lobbying set up. everyone is going after their portion. if you eliminate the honey pot, then there is nothing to hand out. there is no reason for a corporation, union, welfarist, etc to try to get something from the government because they dont have anything to give. that is my solution. get rid of the power to give anything away. but the majority of the left or OWS crowd or whoever would not support this, because they want THEIR piece of the pie. they want to steer the ship of state to coerce people they dont like and want to trample on. this movement is obviously not about just separation of corporation and state because they want to regulate any capitalist acts between consenting adults out of business. if we did sever corporation and state these people would still be raging anti capitalist talking about profits, talking about greed and everything else, even though these companies hold no coercive power over anyone.

 

look at the protests. the government is shooting people with rubber bullets, throwing flash bangs in the crowd, beating and maiming people, jailing them, enforcing stupid regulations and laws on them.... wells fargo and starbucks arent doing that. its government. see the difference.

this is what government does:

 

 

walmart didnt do this.

[Decyferon]

pointless exercise this discussion, you blame government, I say government is in the pocket of business. The number of politicians who are on the boards of banks, oil companies, gas companies, huge retailers etc is huge they will make sure that policy is in favour of business. There needs to be a seperation from government and business, if you want to be a politician that should mean you are not allowed to be invested into these companies, you are there to serve the peoples interest not companies, there is too much conflict of interest when you have your hand in both pies.

 

We already know you want to get rid of government AOD, the arguement always come back to that which is something I disagree with because I believe in free education, healthcare, roads, lights, welfare for people that need it, disability benefits for people that need it. All these people would be left to rot if not for government assistance because big business isnt going to help them.

[angelofdeath]

pointless exercise this discussion, you blame government, I say government is in the pocket of business. The number of politicians who are on the boards of banks, oil companies, gas companies, huge retailers etc is huge they will make sure that policy is in favour of business. There needs to be a seperation from government and business, if you want to be a politician that should mean you are not allowed to be invested into these companies, you are there to serve the peoples interest not companies, there is too much conflict of interest when you have your hand in both pies.

 

We already know you want to get rid of government AOD, the arguement always come back to that which is something I disagree with because I believe in free education, healthcare, roads, lights, welfare for people that need it, disability benefits for people that need it. All these people would be left to rot if not for government assistance because big business isnt going to help them.

 

your view rests entirely on the basis that someone else is responsible for your life. that individuals are not responsible for themselves. i reject this on its face.

 

you say govt is in the pocket of big business. there is no doubt there is a lot of truth in that statement. this is exactly what i think OWS should concentrate on. separating corporation and state. but dont you think its ironic that you want to use an entity that is controlled by corporations to reign in the corporations? do you think this will work?

 

corporations control govt.

we need the govt to protect us from corporations.

sounds perfectly logical. *sarcasm

[Decyferon]

obviously you need to seperate the business from government before the government can truely be effective to its people.

[angelofdeath]

no doubt. i believe that 100%. EVERYTHING should be separated from the state. however on a side note, every day that goes by, i dont believe any govt can truly be effective to its people.

 

but i do not seek to then steer the ship of state to forcibly extract resources from others in order to give to the Free Stuff Army

[MOOGLE?]

not really claiming im contributing much or have a textbook grasp on the laserbeam retna damaging walls of no u text going on in here...but wtf are yall arguing about in general ?

 

can you please explain in a less than 2 paragraph nonexternal link post relating to personal geographical viewpoints...

[Soup]

2 points.

on corporate personhood.

what you actually mean when you say eliminate corporate personhood.

do you literally mean that corporations (groups of people that arrange themselves this way for tax and investing purposes) have no rights?

 

for instance, if corporate 'personhood' is eliminated a news paper or a news organization should then not be able to speak freely or put out news. it also means, that if you are against citizens united, that a corporation that runs a small store that has 1 or 2 shareholders, say a husband and wife, wouldnt be able to hang a sign in their business because they would be 'speaking.'

 

2. unions.

i support unions. i support organizing on a voluntary basis. i support en masse quits. i do not support a group of people who organize and FORCE themselves to associate with employers who dont want to deal with them. if a 'union' has a right to quit en masse, an employer has a right to 'en masse' fire them. the only way to have a real free market union is to separate union and state, just like we should separate corporation and state.

union workers would then have to compete with 'scabs' and see who comes out on top.

 

You're right, corporate personhood as it was understood when originally created in the 1800's was simply the constitutional rights of "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of speech" put together. It also allows judicial systems to prosecute corporations altogether for any wrongdoing instead of trying to make a charge stick to one individual. That part of corporate personhood can probably stay. But what it's created since 1800's hasn't been that great. Because corporations are now, in some instances, prosecuted as people they've wanted to rights to protect themselves, as people too. The progeny of corporate personhood has been special interest groups who now under a slew of laws like Citizens United can buy as many presidential candidates and laws as it wants. Through lobbyists corporations have effectively bought the entire republican party to fight for their special interests. This means that the people in the senate are only making decisions based on what lobbying committee gave them money that week, and even the super committee, which was designed so that there were fewer external forces, is the target of some of the fiercest and most expensive lobbying campaigns of this year.

 

it stagnates the political process because now there's more talking heads in every room. It enlarges the political process because with more money republicans can reach out to grass roots movements and even flood local school board elections with hundreds of thousands of dollars. And it shrinks the amount of progress being made to this country because now everybody's only thinking about what's good for one or two companies. Government and politics are supposed to represent what the "gist" of the American population believes to be good. It's not supposed to benefit one company while hurting another. It's not supposed to be about companies at all.

 

Your points on Unions I agree with you on. I've never been part of a union but I know people who are and they've always said the same thing. They hate that a chunk of their income goes to paying union fees and making union leaders rich, but in this day and age it's also a necessary evil to counteract the political prowess of corporate personhood. If the government was just an institution that represented the needs of "humanity" then you wouldn't see this whole escalation of one private interest group popping up to counteract another private interest group.

[Mercer]

This threads is now officially for trolls with opposing views, and freshman dormish circular conversations.

[MOOGLE?]

overhishead.jpeg

[Fist 666]

police are not the government any more than a fireman, the mailman, or a security guard at the court house...

 

you guys flip from real educated to real dumb real fast.

[MOOGLE?]

dude...

[Soup]

Frank is a wannabe anarchist/troll who wants to watch the world burn one post at a time..... yeah... Just leave em be.

 

And to Mercer, I'm not opposing AoD's view. In fact I support his view. I just enjoy the discussion because I want to get our facts straight. And this all ties into the discussion about OWS because what we're discussing is the actual basis of the movement and questions posed by OWS protestors.

 

How do we create better wages and more jobs?

How do we create a banking system we can trust?

What part of "the system" has failed us?

What is the government's role in all of this?

What is wall street's role in all of this?

 

Frankly the questions posed by OWS are as old as dirt and the entire world has yet to agree upon an answer. It cracks me up that people are now asking OWS for one.

[Soup]

Well excuse me. Its not that i want you or anyone else to accept my point of view, it's that you shift gears in your argument and flip flop around to different topics to avoid either of us coming to any sort of agreement on anything. That's not a discussion. Theres a whole other thread you're avoiding precisely for the reasons I specified: You are here not to discuss. You're here to troll.

 

Edit: actually YOU specified the same thing by saying you're a anarchist/troll who will use anarchy/troll tactics to filibuster GA meetings at OWS. Sooo yeah. If that's your thing, nobody should respond to you. K I'm done.

[angelofdeath]

police are not the government any more than a fireman, the mailman, or a security guard at the court house...

 

you guys flip from real educated to real dumb real fast.

 

REALLY?

police do not enforce the laws of the government? really? concentration camp guards, SS, the stasi, were just simple bureaucrats and were actually just private citizens doing their 'job' in the market place? cmon.

 

if it werent for enforcement agents, govt's would have no authority. they cannot enforce there will on others, centrally plan society, and rule over their tax cattle without force. i'd urge you to try to tell 'the government' after the separate entity known as the police haul you into court for violating some mala prohibitum law that...'i read on the interwebz that police arent part of the government so they have no authority and my arrest is unlawful. a legislator must come and put me in jail.'

[Decyferon]

I think he means more that the police are not the policy makers, like you can't blame a bank teller in a bank for causing the wall st meltdown.

[shai]

im still waiting on a definition of what is 'corporate personhood.'

 

Unless you Google it yourself you might be waiting for a while...I think what you want me to do is tell you what I think it means then pick that apart, and I'm not going to fall for that one.

 

police actions on the occupations.

seems odd to me though. considering basically what the occupation movement stands for is using the government to solve problems and reign in corporations that the government has propped up, subsidized and protected. seems odd that the government is maiming, caging, bullying, enforcing stupid laws against the protesters. i dont see walmart, whole foods and wells fargo sending cops out there doing it. who is more violent?

 

This is all over the place, but again my interpretation of what the police should be and what they've become has gotten me into a lot of arguments with otherwise intelligent and informed people, so...let's just say that I think that they don't serve my interests and leave it at that.

[Fist 666]

my police point was this: frank has for the last 20 pages of this thread argued semantics in nearly every post. if you question the validity of soup's posts because he uses system in place of method, then don't post moronic shit that uses police in place of government, thats a far greater stretch.

 

if you and aod need that broken down and want to start another 3 page derail about how enslaved you are, make nazi comparisons, etc then you're clearly out of touch with reality, and too far into your roundabout rhetoric.

[angelofdeath]

Unless you Google it yourself you might be waiting for a while...I think what you want me to do is tell you what I think it means then pick that apart, and I'm not going to fall for that one.

 

im actually REALLY interested in what people mean by this. because there are certain aspects of 'corporate personhood' that are illegitimate. i do not however believe that because people pool their money together and put out a movie about hillary clinton, with the name of their group on it... that they do not have a right to do this. it seems the height of silliness to say that the new york times can have the right to speak freely, but some other group of individuals doesnt.

ending 'corporate personhood' seems to be one of those things like 'end corporate greed.' its not really defined, its fuzzy and you only get answers like you gave.

 

 

 

 

This is all over the place, but again my interpretation of what the police should be and what they've become has gotten me into a lot of arguments with otherwise intelligent and informed people, so...let's just say that I think that they don't serve my interests and leave it at that.

 

my point is simple. the occupy movement is protesting corporations, corporate greed, etc. yet walmart is not breaking up their protests, throwing people in jail and throwing flash bangs at them...government is. government is violent, corporations engaged in voluntary trade are not.

 

on other side note:

what happens when the 1% is eliminated by the 99%, does the whole thing start over again and the 99% attack the new 1%?

[angelofdeath]

my police point was this: frank has for the last 20 pages of this thread argued semantics in nearly every post. if you question the validity of soup's posts because he uses system in place of method, then don't post moronic shit that uses police in place of government, thats a far greater stretch.

 

if you and aod need that broken down and want to start another 3 page derail about how enslaved you are, make nazi comparisons, etc then you're clearly out of touch with reality, and too far into your roundabout rhetoric.

 

i think it is rather silly to not believe that police in america are not enforcing government laws and are therefore PART OF THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

 

im sure if montsanto was sending guys in blue costumes with badges down to the local occupy camp out and were shooting rubber rounds at people, you would say montsanto is initiating force against those non violent people. yet when government goons in blue costumes do the same thing you are trying to tell me its not the government engaging in this actions.

[MOOGLE?]

wait..are we(lol nvmnd ..you guys) talking about androids now?

 

so lost

[shai]

im actually REALLY interested in what people mean by this. because there are certain aspects of 'corporate personhood' that are illegitimate. i do not however believe that because people pool their money together and put out a movie about hillary clinton, with the name of their group on it... that they do not have a right to do this. it seems the height of silliness to say that the new york times can have the right to speak freely, but some other group of individuals doesnt.

ending 'corporate personhood' seems to be one of those things like 'end corporate greed.' its not really defined, its fuzzy and you only get answers like you gave.

 

I have no problem with individuals making money as long as they take responsibility for their actions, legal or otherwise. However, some corporations want to have it both ways and throw zillions of dollars in funny money around to make that possible....then proceed to fall back on some convoluted interpretation of archaic case law that never really served the interests of the general populace.

 

my point is simple. the occupy movement is protesting corporations, corporate greed, etc. yet walmart is not breaking up their protests, throwing people in jail and throwing flash bangs at them...government is. government is violent, corporations engaged in voluntary trade are not.

 

I feel like you're really reaching here, but I can tell you that in Oakland the cops are more focused on property issues surrounding the occupation (i.e. squatting bank owned buildings, the grass in front of City Hall, broken windows and graffiti) than they are with actually protecting and serving the people. Okay...I may be stretching this a bit, but it doesn't take that big of a deductive leap to see what's going on.

 

Government is neither good nor evil, it's just the means to get things done on a large scale. I agree with you that I would like a lot less of it in my life, but it's human nature to want organization and order yet believe they have some measure of autonomy. Go figure.

 

on other side note:

what happens when the 1% is eliminated by the 99%, does the whole thing start over again and the 99% attack the new 1%?

 

Read "Animal Farm" then get back to me.

[angelofdeath]

archaic case law[/url] that never really served the interests of the general populace.

 

some of those earlier 'corporate personhood' cases are all side effects of the state as they deal with taxes, etc on the property. if we had no taxes, some of those cases wouldnt of existed.

 

im with you on the part about corporations or people for that matter, being liable. the problem isnt the corporations, its the government giving them special treatment. the problem is the state, as it usually always is. framed a different way. its sort of like a bunch of anti welfare types going down to the local welfare office and protesting the welfare recipients. its silly and counterproductive because the actual problem is the state taking their money to give away in their name.

 

i do think however that the blanket statement that groups of individuals dont have rights or they only have rights that the collective decides, is a bad way to move forward. a much better approach is to get rid of the corporatism. if you eliminate the state from the equation, you eliminate most of the problems. lets be realistic, corporations exist as a convenient way to set up a business largely for tax purposes. if these taxes didnt exist, and if the govt didnt offer special favors and the like to the corporate structure, im sure the number of 'corporations' would be dramatically lower

 

 

 

I feel like you're really reaching here, but I can tell you that in Oakland the cops are more focused on property issues surrounding the occupation (i.e. squatting bank owned buildings, the grass in front of City Hall, broken windows and graffiti) than they are with actually protecting and serving the people. Okay...I may be stretching this a bit, but it doesn't take that big of a deductive leap to see what's going on.

 

 

since im not on the ground, i dont really know whats going on, but from an outsider looking in, it seems that the police started harassing people. shit got out of hand. then came the property damage, etc. the most basic duty of the police is to protect property. this is a legitimate function. so the property damage sort of justified their existence. if all the damage didnt take place, its a much easier case to show how idiotic the cops are. for instance, lets suppose rich people started protesting and started burning down poor neighborhoods. i would surely like to see cops stepping in and defending the property owners if they couldnt do so themselves.

 

Government is neither good nor evil, it's just the means to get things done on a large scale. I agree with you that I would like a lot less of it in my life, but it's human nature to want organization and order yet believe they have some measure of autonomy. Go figure.

 

there is no issue with organizing on a voluntary level, the problem comes forcing others to join or forcing your will on others.

govt by its very existence is evil, in the same manner that slavery is evil because it demands compliance. some plantations treated their slaves well, some govts treat their citizens ok. this doesnt change the fact that they are enslaved in the first place.

[Soup]

REALLY?

police do not enforce the laws of the government? really? concentration camp guards, SS, the stasi, were just simple bureaucrats and were actually just private citizens doing their 'job' in the market place? cmon.

 

if it werent for enforcement agents, govt's would have no authority. they cannot enforce there will on others, centrally plan society, and rule over their tax cattle without force. i'd urge you to try to tell 'the government' after the separate entity known as the police haul you into court for violating some mala prohibitum law that...'i read on the interwebz that police arent part of the government so they have no authority and my arrest is unlawful. a legislator must come and put me in jail.'

 

Police only enforce the laws that benefit them, in a way that benefits them. Not that we need any examples but heres an entertaining one. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent?act=2

[angelofdeath]

i cant just say they only enforce laws that 'benefit' them. i would say that they do enforce laws that they get something out of FIRST, but lets get one thing straight...citizens rights mean nothing in america and if you challenge the authority of any LEO, they will respond with force. period. very few cops are actual peace officers these days.

but to be fair, there are some good cops. after all we wouldnt want the bad apple cops to give the other 5% a bad name.

 

perfect example of how they enforce laws that benefit them first, before going after the other 'offenders' is the civil asset forfeiture rackets they have going on with supposed 'drug activity.' if your house is broken in, they'll just take a phone report. but if you say you smell marijuana, the swat team will be out.

[Soup]

I think that podcast does a great job at describing how the police chain of command works.

 

You have police departments not going after serious crimes because if they do, they have to write it up and overall crime in that city looks higher on paper. You have cops talking people out of reporting their own vehicles stolen, talking rape victims out of reporting rapes, and so on.

 

You have police departments pressuring cops to illegaly shake down civilians and make illegal arrests to make sure the police force is feared and respected.

 

It's entirely plausible that the police forces are targeting OWS protestors because while they're tied up with that fiasco they're not chasing down real crimes, which means real crimes aren't being written up, which means overall crime seems far less than it actually is, and therefor the police stations look like they're doing a good job.

[angelofdeath]

thats pretty much what i've been trying to get a straight answer on. the answers all seem to involve either ignoring the question or abstract thoughts that dont answer the question.

 

the OWS crowd seems to be hung up on citizens united as well, which overturned a federal law banning free speech around election time. it ruled that a group of people, a corporation, has a right to put out a movie about a political candidate.

[MOOGLE?]

i just cant take any of you serious anymore...

 

heres this in small scale from my hometown

http://www.facebook.com/OccupySheboygan