Occupy Wall Street

[shai]

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.

 

You're probably right but I think you're seeing it as a case of the tail wagging the dog. Corporations have a reputation of lobbying for special treatment while abrogating their responsibilities. It's not necessarily in the state's best interest to cut corporations deals on taxation and regulation because eventually they're going to be the ones that have to clean up the mess.

 

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.

 

As you can probably imagine, I know a great deal more about this than I'm willing to share here. What I can say with almost 100% certainty is that my friends did NOT go out of their way to destroy anything or pick a fight with the cops....nevertheless, some of them got pretty fucked up just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

I have a pretty good idea when it's time to go and I never second guess my hunch when I see things going in a weird direction. I did the whole getting arrested/gassed/beat up thing when I was younger, I'm over it...I feel like I can have a much greater impact by staying healthy and out of jail.

 

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.

 

That's one of the cool things about the GAs, they're consensus based and voluntary. The catch is that you don't really have a right to bitch if you don't participate.

[Soup]

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.

 

Do you even read my posts? I talked about citizens united. It didn't overturn a law banning free speech. It overturned a law effectively banning private interest groups, like corporations, from spending unlimited money to fund campaign ads for or against any federal candidate they wanted. Frankly I dont want any private interest groups influencing any part of the federal government. There should only be public interest groups.

 

And secondly limited liability is a fraction of the problem around corporate personhood. I gave you so many more examples around the problems of corporate personhood. Limited Liability is ridiculous because it's effectively a subsidy awarded to every company involved in the BP oil spill by forcing on the American Tax-Payers to clean up the mess. Why the hell should limited liability exist?

[Soup]

I've talked about it a lot already so I'll just cliff notes it: Lobby reform, campaign finance reform, ending private interest groups, ending senators and congress and elections on every level from president to school board official being won through wealth and publicity. End tariffs and subsidies and government favors to corporations (but this is the hardest one when we live in a state capitalist world). End asymmetrical accounting of the GDP, because if you end that and people could visibly see the effect the BP oil spill has on people's businesses and lives, nobody would want to support BP.

[Soup]

Here[/url] is a pretty interesting article which loosely parallels our discussion of participatory democracy. M Canovan sets up discussion on the antagonism between the redemptive and pragmatic sources of democratic legitimacy, within which Soup's argument is broadly advocating the redemptive aspect, and mine would largely be based on pragmatic concerns. Not a perfect fit, but interesting none the less.

 

I'm not getting it. Where does populism factor in?

[Soup]

If only the answers to those questions were snakes...

 

 

I shorthanded the answer because i already answered those questions. So how to say this in as few words as possible. If you like all of those libertarian economists, believe in a free economy, and so on you agree that corporations shouldn't be giving money to politicians in exchange for special favors. The duty of a government is to serve in the interest of the public, not the private. That sounds incredibly simple but because of corporate personhood, we think of private entities as public persons with constitutional rights... and under those rights corporations are given the rights to lobby for their own self interest.

 

Its not good. I can sit here and post hundreds of examples how special interest groups have rendered congress useless, have thwarted fairness in free market capitalism and even how they caused the entire housing crisis.

[Soup]

According to Canovans thesis, it emerges due to the irreducible and perpetual rift between pragmatic and redemptive state based democracy. In relation to our discussion its not as significant as the distinction between redemptivity and pragmatism, but as per Canovans argument your/OWS's interest in participatory democracy could be conceived as a populist response to the perceived inadequacies of elite, entrenched, pragmatic political institutions.

 

* I should make it clear that I am drawing no value judgements from this. I just posted this article because I was reading it anyway and there are parallels to previous discussion which I thought you and others might find interesting.

 

That's using a lot of fancy words. In layman's terms you're suggesting that OWS is a populist movement because populists insist on the self-inflated role that the government plays in welfare and wealth redistribution, which began after the great depression. I dont see it that way. I see OWS as a third party that doesn't derive its power from the public or the private sectors. It has its own voting process that is inclusive of everyone and derives its power from that. I think there are populists involved in OWS, but they are not the majority. I think Herman Cain is more populist than OWS.

[Soup]

I don't know why you are talking about libertarianism, this has nothing to do with my question. Also, I can see these are some of the problems that you have identified in prior posts, but you haven't answered my question. I am asking what limitations, exactly, do you want to place on corporations? Or the inverse of this question is; what rights, if any, should a corporation have?

 

I ask this because I am interested in your perspective. Not because I am setting you up for an anarchist tirade haha

I bring up libertarianism because if you are libertarian and believe in an unregulated free market economy, then that saves me a lot of time trying to convince you that a government with subsidies and tariffs is not what you want. I can then just explain how those subsidies and tariffs occur through our lobbying of congress.

 

 

 

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. Where do you get that from?

Because that's what a populist movement is. In so many words, A demand for wealth redistribution through welfare programs and other forms of government intervention.

[Soup]

I already answered that question. Campaign finance reform and lobby reform. If you understand congress and lobbying in America then I don't need to explain what limitations and rights that will or will not allow corporations to have.

 

 

Look up every populist political party in America since the 1890's. I see how some of the people involved in those parties would be involved in OWS, but I dont see how OWS itself is actually populist because it is not political, is not demanding change through the government, and has its own participatory democratic process, not demanding one from the government. That to me is a key distinction.

[Soup]

Right, and by that definition Sarah Palin is a populist. Almost anyone who runs on the political ticket of representing some kind of public rage (In this country, usually against the current administration) and wants more public services (leftist populist movements its big public projects like roads and postal service, rightist usually tax-cuts) is a populist.

 

OWS is still not a political movement. A political movement wouldn't have attracted marxists and libertarians to the same venue.

[angelofdeath]

You're probably right but I think you're seeing it as a case of the tail wagging the dog. Corporations have a reputation of lobbying for special treatment while abrogating their responsibilities. It's not necessarily in the state's best interest to cut corporations deals on taxation and regulation because eventually they're going to be the ones that have to clean up the mess.

 

no doubt.

but this is a failure of government. if we have given the power of government to enforce property rights, and if they are failing, like the currently are, its their fault. government should be holding everyone accountable for their externalities. if i dump a bunch of garbage on my neighbors yard, i am responsible for it. if a corporation dumps a bunch of shit in my drinking water source, they say 'we arent responsible because its the EPA's responsibility' and the EPA isnt liable. they cant be sued. the system sucks and it sucks because property rights arent enforced.

 

one of the underlying themes to this conversation is that anti market people try to paint the average corporation as being in favor of a true free market. they are just as in favor of a centrally planned state as the left. if libertarianism was truly about 'letting corporations get away with stuff...' why arent they supporting libertarians? if they have all this power, they can buy anyone they want. just goes to show they are not in favor of free markets.

 

 

 

That's one of the cool things about the GAs, they're consensus based and voluntary. The catch is that you don't really have a right to bitch if you don't participate.

 

thats is all well and good.

they are not however voluntary when they reach an agreement and demand the state to pay for college tuition, healthcare or to infringe on someone elses liberty which is the only thing i can see the end game being with them.

[angelofdeath]

Do you even read my posts? I talked about citizens united. It didn't overturn a law banning free speech. It overturned a law effectively banning private interest groups, like corporations, from spending unlimited money to fund campaign ads for or against any federal candidate they wanted. Frankly I dont want any private interest groups influencing any part of the federal government. There should only be public interest groups.

 

 

 

hahaha. really? 'public' interest groups?

you really mean to tell me that if 3 of my friends get together, put out money together, create a movie about hillary clinton and release it during an election cycle, you have a right to tell me i cannot do this?

that is the essence of citizens united.

 

if you want to limit influence on government, the only rightful remedy is to make government so small that is has nothing to influence. the only public good a government could possibly do is protect rights.

 

Limited Liability is ridiculous because it's effectively a subsidy awarded to every company involved in the BP oil spill by forcing on the American Tax-Payers to clean up the mess. Why the hell should limited liability exist?

 

exactly, it shouldnt exist. why does it? because of government. if we had a free market, polluters are responsible for their own actions. you dont have the price anderson act limiting liability of nuclear power producers in a free market. such is the problem when you have a government that can grant favors, special privileges, etc. you cant expect a government that has the power to give out anything it wants to only give out the favors to college students, the poor, the retired and the sick. its going to give out favors to others. wishing for a state that only does 'good' things is like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles. or rattle snake that only plays percussive accompaniment to meriachi music.

 

the part i want you think about is if you effective agree that it is ok for a collective body to decide what rights a group of individuals have it means your favorite leftist anti corporate news company cant exist because they are a group putting out the news, free press, free speech and all that. ideologically it also means, if groups of people dont have rights, that if OWS pools their money together and puts out a documentary during election time about evil republican corporate bastards, they arent allowed to. it means unions cant put out a billboard ad. if means you can say whatever you want to as long as you dont talk about a politician. these campaign laws and their cousins are the same laws that make it illegal to put a sign in a yard before a certain number of days before election with a g'damn name on it. if these people dont have rights because they pooled their resources, you are infringing on basic liberties.

[angelofdeath]

I've talked about it a lot already so I'll just cliff notes it: Lobby reform, campaign finance reform, ending private interest groups, ending senators and congress and elections on every level from president to school board official being won through wealth and publicity. End tariffs and subsidies and government favors to corporations (but this is the hardest one when we live in a state capitalist world). End asymmetrical accounting of the GDP, because if you end that and people could visibly see the effect the BP oil spill has on people's businesses and lives, nobody would want to support BP.

 

im with you on ending tariffs and favors. i agree the GDP numbers are bogus as are the CPI numbers.

 

however, ending a 'private interest group' (i'd be interested in knowing what a 'public' interest group is, perhaps one that argues for big government?) is ending the right to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances. campaign finance reform effectively is nothing but a limitation on free speech.

 

a much better solution is to shrink the state to a manageable size before under taking cutting it more. if it has no power to hand out favors, all the problems go away. you cant have your cake and eat it to. a big government that is not steered by the big players be it welfare statists or warfare statists.

[Soup]

hahahaha are you serious? OWS is not a political movement? I'm actually laughing here. I mean, in all seriousness you have said some pretty screwy shit in this thread, but this has to take the cake.

 

Trolling.

 

Ok smart guy, if they're political, what's their platform? Are they on the side of big or small government? Rightists? Leftists? Centrists? What officials have they elected? Where are their lobbyists? What groups have they been co-opted by? The only thing they've done politically is tried to ascertain permits to set up shop, which makes them about as political as a hot dog stand.

 

They aren't a political movement. They're essentially a co-op venue for social, political, economic, demographic and even technological discussions and a general assembly that resembles the weekly house discussion I have with my roommates. Get it? Ive said this a million times. Shai's said that a million times. Everybody's said this a million times.

[Soup]

hahaha. really? 'public' interest groups?

you really mean to tell me that if 3 of my friends get together, put out money together, create a movie about hillary clinton and release it during an election cycle, you have a right to tell me i cannot do this?

Well no, because a couple guys making a video is barely a drop in the bucket of capital that makes up any given candidate's campaign finance. We're talking unlimited spending here. You're not going to be receiving any favors for that video you made. You won't be whispering in any senator's ear about what does or doesn't go into any bill. You're not looking to Hillary for a huge direct return on investment, maybe that exempts you from paying fees or taxes that everybody else pays, places tariffs on competing film makers, or subsidizes your camera equipment. You're not tying up a congress, whose lights are kept on with my taxes, with the duty of passing all the phony laws that only serve to benefit you. You're not in the room with the super committee helping them make their decisions. You dont have senators telling you "I liked the message in your video, but I haven't received any money from you all week so I won't be doing anything to support this cause we both mutually like." And so on.

 

THAT is the essence of citizens united. Citizens united was a ruling that decided corporations have the same rights as people to infinitely finance federal campaigns, so now not only do they control the congress (lawmakers, those who decide taxes and so on) they're trying to control the whitehouse as well. Citizens united has nothing to do with you and three friends, because even if you guys were trying to get a couple laws written to favor your private interests you don't have the capital. You aren't even a corporation. The right to make that video is protected without citizens united.

 

if you want to limit influence on government, the only rightful remedy is to make government so small that is has nothing to influence. the only public good a government could possibly do is protect rights.

Exactly, but how do you do that? Regulate lobbying. Congress controls federal spending, taxes, lawmaking and so on. You shrink the amount of cash lobbyists have, you shrink the number of favors that congress gives out, you shrink the federal spending. Thanks to lobbyists, Washington's median income is as high as silicon valley. You have to take the monetary incentives out of beurocracy to reduce the power corporations have in it.

 

 

 

exactly, it shouldnt exist. why does it? because of government. if we had a free market, polluters are responsible for their own actions. you dont have the price anderson act limiting liability of nuclear power producers in a free market. such is the problem when you have a government that can grant favors, special privileges, etc. you cant expect a government that has the power to give out anything it wants to only give out the favors to college students, the poor, the retired and the sick. its going to give out favors to others. wishing for a state that only does 'good' things is like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles. or rattle snake that only plays percussive accompaniment to meriachi music.

 

Im all for a Friedman-style of unregulated free market capitalism..maybe. There's a 50-50 chance socialized medicare would work wonderfully in America. Annnd I think government regulatory departments like he EPA are good but the people who work at them suck. Anyway..

 

It's all about how you limit the amount of favors congress gives. I say corporations have way too much capital so just remove their lobbyists from congress. It makes the market fair because if no corporation has a lobbyist, no corporation's getting any special treatment. No special treatment means no subsidies, tariffs, limited liability, tax exemptions or otherwise. All disputes between companies has to be settled through the market. Wallmart can't enact a law that prohibits banks from charging debit transaction fees because they dont want to pay $0.68 anymore. Banks wont have anything protest. Taxpayers won't have to pay to keep congress's light's on through that bitchfest. If you want a free market then you dont want corporations using corporate personhood to get special favors.

 

 

 

the part i want you think about is if you effective agree that it is ok for a collective body to decide what rights a group of individuals have it means your favorite leftist anti corporate news company cant exist because they are a group putting out the news, free press, free speech and all that. ideologically it also means, if groups of people dont have rights, that if OWS pools their money together and puts out a documentary during election time about evil republican corporate bastards, they arent allowed to. it means unions cant put out a billboard ad. if means you can say whatever you want to as long as you dont talk about a politician. these campaign laws and their cousins are the same laws that make it illegal to put a sign in a yard before a certain number of days before election with a g'damn name on it. if these people dont have rights because they pooled their resources, you are infringing on basic liberties.

 

I know the news is suggesting OWS is leftist because it wants the 1% to pay the same amount of taxes, but if you ask me what they're really asking for is an elimination of tax brackets and exemptions. That would eliminate this game that presidential candidates play of promising tax-reductions, but then increasing inflation to the point that people are in a higher tax bracket and pay more taxes anyway. I guess that makes OWS leftist, because the game of tax reductions is mostly played by republican candidates. Regardless i think the majority of republicans would support less inflation.

 

And I think your understanding of corporate personhood is a bit skewed. I'm not a corporation. You're not a corporation. An assembly of people is not a corporation. Railroads are corporations. My gas company is a corporation. Google is a corporation. Enron is a corporation. Your rights to freedom of speech are protected under the constitution which was written by people for people. It's only in the last couple decades that corporations have even been given the right to lobby, finance political officials and so on. And also keep in mind that private companies giving private money means tracking who gave what to who is also private.

 

Also finally how do you come to the conclusion that free speech is somehow limited in an OWS-style participatory democracy? How do you foresee news stations being restricted? I dont know if you're mixing issues of corporate personhood with participatory democracy but that doesn't make sense. Participatory democracy doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom of speech. So lets make sure we both understand that the issue on corporate personhood and the issue of participatory democracy are two entirely separate issues. That said, end corporate personhood doesn't end anybody's freedom of speech or any other constitutional right. It insures your voice is being heard when there are people who are wealthier or more famous than you and use that wealth and fame to shut you out on social issues.

 

 

 

Edit: and to the other post you made—I didn't make up "public interest group" look it up. You know what a private group is compared to a public group is, don't you? And yeah, all interest groups effectively argue in favor of big government. They wouldn't be knocking on congress' door if they didn't think it was big enough to offer them something.

[angelofdeath]

Well no, because a couple guys making a video is barely a drop in the bucket of capital that makes up any given candidate's campaign finance.

 

it must be noted that that is basically what citizens united overturned. it allowed a group of people to put out a video about a candidate.

 

 

You're not tying up a congress, whose lights are kept on with my taxes, with the duty of passing all the phony laws that only serve to benefit you.

 

but such is the inherent problems with supporting a coercive institution in the first place. no ones interest is represented all the time. everyone is coerced in one way or another. absent laws that protect property rights, life and liberty, all laws passed are simply phony laws that benefit a special interest. even the laws you support benefit a special interest.

 

Citizens united was a ruling that decided corporations have the same rights as people to infinitely finance federal campaigns, so now not only do they control the congress (lawmakers, those who decide taxes and so on) they're trying to control the whitehouse as well. Citizens united has nothing to do with you and three friends, because even if you guys were trying to get a couple laws written to favor your private interests you don't have the capital. You aren't even a corporation. The right to make that video is protected without citizens united.

 

you still dont get it.

if 3 friends pool their money, file a form with the state, they are a g'damn corporation. everyone is so tied on how people associate themselves its just funny. we all agree on the limited liability thing, but if you are saying that because a group of people call themselves a corporation that they all of a sudden lose their rights to collectively pool resources and put out a message, this is a major problem for the rights of everyone in this country.

 

you have this fantasy that every 'corporation' is some multi billion dollar enterprise when in fact a corporation can be owned by 1 person with 1$ as its assets.

 

 

Exactly, but how do you do that? Regulate lobbying. Congress controls federal spending, taxes, lawmaking and so on. You shrink the amount of cash lobbyists have, you shrink the number of favors that congress gives out, you shrink the federal spending. Thanks to lobbyists, Washington's median income is as high as silicon valley. You have to take the monetary incentives out of beurocracy to reduce the power corporations have in it.

 

given that every law has a dozen unintended consequences, you are just creating more problems

and given that the federal government with virtually unlimited resources cannot keep drugs out of max security prisons, the most controlled environment in this country, how do you propose that the government is going to keep special interests out of washington when washington still has the power to give out special favors to groups x, y, and z?

 

 

Im all for a Friedman-style of unregulated free market capitalism..maybe. There's a 50-50 chance socialized medicare would work wonderfully in America. Annnd I think government regulatory departments like he EPA are good but the people who work at them suck.

 

friedman wasnt the unregulated free market guy you think. he was in favor a central bank, in favor of central planning in monetary policy and was the guy who gave us income tax with holding, but understand what you are trying to say.

 

the same EPA that threw a guy in jail for a few years, fined him hundreds of thousands of dollars, and harassed and harangued him for CLEANING UP A PUBLIC DUMPING SPOT ON PROPERTY HE BOUGHT?

 

It's all about how you limit the amount of favors congress gives. I say corporations have way too much capital so just remove their lobbyists from congress. It makes the market fair because if no corporation has a lobbyist, no corporation's getting any special treatment. No special treatment means no subsidies, tariffs, limited liability, tax exemptions or otherwise. All disputes between companies has to be settled through the market. Wallmart can't enact a law that prohibits banks from charging debit transaction fees because they dont want to pay $0.68 anymore. Banks wont have anything protest. Taxpayers won't have to pay to keep congress's light's on through that bitchfest. If you want a free market then you dont want corporations using corporate personhood to get special favors.

 

the only way to effectively limit the special favors is to take away the govts power to give them. anything else is just wishful thinking. because we have been a society who seeks everything from government, we have an unlimited state that can do what it wants.

 

the only way to separate corporation and state is to get the state out of the equation. if the state has nothing to offer, there will be no lobbyists. you dont see lobbyists lobbying ron paul for special favors and bail outs do you? but you surely see obama installing montsanto's lawyer in the FDA. goldman sachs isnt giving ron paul money, but they surely gave more to obama last time around than anyone else. this is because they know where to go to get the favors. if the govt was run by ron pauls who followed the rule of law, there would be no lobbying because there is nothing to give.

 

the only lobbying i support is lobbying government to leave me the F alone.

 

 

And I think your understanding of corporate personhood is a bit skewed. I'm not a corporation. You're not a corporation. An assembly of people is not a corporation. Railroads are corporations. My gas company is a corporation. Google is a corporation. Enron is a corporation. Your rights to freedom of speech are protected under the constitution which was written by people for people. It's only in the last couple decades that corporations have even been given the right to lobby, finance political officials and so on. And also keep in mind that private companies giving private money means tracking who gave what to who is also private.

 

a corporation is an association of people who filed some paper work with the state and got a EIN. that is it. a corporation can be 1 person and it can own 0 assets. i can create a corporation in the state of new mexico in about 10 min and pay 25$ to do it. if we didnt have this ridiculous taxation, a society full of litigation, and the like, and a state that refused to grant special privileges, corporations wouldnt hardly exist. the incentive to incorporate would be insignificant. a corporation boiled down is nothing but a group with a govt ID number.

 

corporations and corporate welfare and hand outs and favors go all the way back to the internal improvement debates between jefferson and hamilton. the big government people were always the ones supporting the corporatism. it seems however that the people who want govt to help other interest groups like the 'poor' and the uninsured have taken over the task. abe lincoln was nothing but a railroad lawyer and lobbyist. jefferson argued that corproate welfare was unconstitutional, yet the big government people ruled the day.

 

Also finally how do you come to the conclusion that free speech is somehow limited in an OWS-style participatory democracy? How do you foresee news stations being restricted? I dont know if you're mixing issues of corporate personhood with participatory democracy but that doesn't make sense.

 

because you are supporting an ideology that subjugates your own people from getting a message out. lets say you and OWS camp want to pool your resources. in order to easily arrange yourselfs and properly allocate and collect the money, you call yourself a corporation. but because you believe that groups of people, in this case a corporation, (a group with a EIN) dont have rights, you just restricted yourself from making a movie about how bad corporate greed is because you want stringent campaign laws that restrict free speech. during the citizens united case, after much weaving and dodging, in response to a judges question they stated that they think the govt has a right to ban a book if the last page of the book say 'vote for _____'

 

if you support the idea that a group of people calling themselves a corporation dont have rights, then you must support the abolition of the new york times. this is a corporation that practices free speech!

 

the first amendment doesnt say 'congress shall write no law.... abridging free speech, unless this free speech is made by a group of people with a EIN, in which case we can ban movies and books if they dare mention one word about a politician.' even the ACLU denounced citizens

 

 

That said, end corporate personhood doesn't end anybody's freedom of speech or any other constitutional right. It insures your voice is being heard when there are people who are wealthier or more famous than you and use that wealth and fame to shut you out on social issues.

 

it always cracks me up when i hear that argument.

the whole, 'we gotta trample this freedom, in order to increase the freedom of others.'

you cant infringe on liberty and say you are increasing it, #1.

2. making that argument is the exact same thing as saying this:

'we need to force all these greedy home owners and private property occupiers to leave their front doors open, because we need to increase the freedom of the homeless to live under a roof!'

 

or

 

"you must keep your wifes legs stretched open because we need to allow these sexually deprived people more freedom!'

 

you cant trample one set of rights and say you are increasing freedom for all.

 

 

Edit: and to the other post you made—I didn't make up "public interest group" look it up. You know what a private group is compared to a public group is, don't you? And yeah, all interest groups effectively argue in favor of big government. They wouldn't be knocking on congress' door if they didn't think it was big enough to offer them something.

 

the idea of a 'public' interest group is entirely subjective.

you would say it is in the public good that we take all the wealth from the 1% and give it to the 99%. you would say its in the public good to force everyone to pay for your grandmothers retirement, your sisters schooling and your college education. i would say all those examples are slavery, theft and an infringement on a peoples natural rights.

 

to show the subjective nature of the term 'public interest' i'd argue that a corporation like apple is in the public interest because they revolutionized smart phone technology and make banging ass computers that are affordable to a very large portion of the population. they are making everyone richer by seeking their own self interest and satisfying consumer demand and trading computers for cash.

now suppose you had some people hi jacking the 'public interest' word and started using this to do the very thing you are against, lobby big government for handouts so we can subsidize an industry to allow more people to get iphones.

 

that is why the term public interest is a not a good one to use.

[shai]

In case anyone's interested there's a student walkout and bank blockade happening right now in Berkeley.

 

I'll be there soon....grey and orange jacket, blond dreadlocks and a bike with flowers in the basket.

[Soup]

Quit trolling and answer the questions. Is that a political party or isn't it?

[Soup]

Uh, it's the same thing. THe tea party is a political party thats been co-opted by a bigger political party. Answer the questions or recognize the difference between a party/movement/whatever you want to call them and a venue. Or dont, but stop trolling.

 

if they're political, what's their platform? Are they on the side of big or small government? Rightists? Leftists? Centrists? What officials have they elected? Where are their lobbyists? What groups have they been co-opted by?

[bourgeoisie]

occupy fox news....

 

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/occupy_fox_news/

[Soup forgot his password]

Semantics. You want to call them a political movement instead of a political party. Itdoesnt change anything. you still won't answer the questions. This is the fourth time I'm asking you.

[theprotester]

You two are insufferable.

[shai]

Once again,

thanks to the cops.

 

And once again there will be a strike this coming Tuesday. Pics to come.

[shai]

[theprotester]

I love that there is an advert for a Nissan Navara at the start of that video.

[Mercer]

Thanks Shai

[Soup]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/10/man-shot-near-occupy-oakland-protest-in-california/

 

I like how Fox pins the shooting on OWS. Not the fact that it's in Oakland and shootings happen all the time.

[theprotester]

LET US LIVE FOREVER

[Fist 666]

as a presence perhaps in some places, the weather here (the cold rainy pacific NW) is starting to turn for the worse. people will get sick if they stay out there.

 

if anything it has gotten a lot of people thinking about elements of government that they've been apathetic/indifferent about for a long time. adult conversations about politics and corruption in our country have taken place in groups far beyond the angry left. i don't think its just going to peter out.

 

there are enough unemployed, angry people to keep this going, those that have 'nothing more to lose' and have nothing to 'go back to doing' will stay involved.

[Mercer]

I wouldn't count OWS out already.

They've raised awareness of issues and have too much forward momentum to die off any time soon.

The far left hasen't been energised like this since the civil rights, and anti-war movements of the 60's.

 

I'm also inclined to think participation in protests related to the movement will continue, along with a significant core of actual camping/occupiers.

People have camped out in worse conditions indefinitely, way before modern timberland and north face technology.

 

A lot of people firmly believe they have no other choice to do so, if they want to see actual change (not bullshit campaign slogan change)

I'm pretty confident we will start seeing actual results, government policy, and legislative reforms start to take shape by next year

[shai]

Well, it finally happened...

 

Shooting death near Occupy Oakland prompts calls for camp to disband

 

RIP mystery dude. I was in SF taking a break when this happened, so I need to call some people (especially my friends on the Medic crew) and see how they're doing.

 

Naturally the city is trying to place blame on the camp. They might as well blame the other 100 murders that happened in Oakland on us too.

 

From what I hear things are still hot at UC Berkeley...after what I saw the other day I needed to get out of the East Bay for a little while.

 

I don't think people are just going to go back to sleep if the camps dissipate...as some of you know I'm all for taking unused/bank owned property and using it to house and help people, so I'm pushing for that to be the next logical step.