On October 28 2011 07:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: Would someone PLEASE explain to me what the difference is between a "real" protester and the "fraud" protesters? It's simply because they have a different primary motivation for being there?
If you asked them if they wanted the system changed, do you think a homeless person would say "no things are perfectly fine the way they are."
So in order to give food to someone you have to make sure they think the same way you do? Is it enough that they go through the motions and pretend to care? If they hold up a sign will they be allowed to eat?
What a joke this is.
So people who are caring and generous enough to volunteer their time to cook and provide food for others are upset that the people they are providing food for aren't able to enjoy the massive effort that went into the preparation of the food because the food is going to purposes to which it was unintended.
Stop trying to make this political and brand the entire movement a hypocrisy. Its transparent and quite a bit of a stretch. The fact that there is a movement-internal dialogue over what to do about the situation says so much more than that there is an issue.
Reading responses such as these, it would be easy to think that you're acting like the kid who follows his classmate who won the spelling bee around, waiting for a grammar mistake, and when one happens, pipes up saying "AHAA!!! SEEE?! I TOLD YOU! I TOLD YOU ALL!"
On October 28 2011 05:23 relyt wrote: Here is a video of Peter Schiff at OWS. I know some of you might not like him or his views but I thought I would show this video anyway. Just to warn you of possible bias, he is a libertarian and this video is done by a libertarian youtube channel, so there might be some selection bias with the people they show him talking to.
This video made me think about the man who was talking about the definition of greed. The whole occupy Wall Street movement is based on greed and envy of the 99%. They are greedy for the profits of corporations to be put in their pockets. Student Loan forgiveness is greed. Wanting to give out others money to poor is greed.
Anyone that has any luxury while people around the world are hungry and homeless are greedy.
On October 28 2011 05:23 relyt wrote: Here is a video of Peter Schiff at OWS. I know some of you might not like him or his views but I thought I would show this video anyway. Just to warn you of possible bias, he is a libertarian and this video is done by a libertarian youtube channel, so there might be some selection bias with the people they show him talking to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&feature=channel_video_title
The video was produced by an organization with a specific viewpoint. It doesn't help their viewpoint to air cogent, well articulated criticisms of it. We don't know if there were any such criticisms during this specific interview, but there have been thousands elsewhere: Just because this video gives a specific viewpoint, doesn't mean other well articulated viewpoints don't exist. You need to ask yourself what the purpose of creating this video was.
I don't know what you are trying to say. I said in my post that it is probably biased because it comes from a libertarian organization. I just posted the video here in case anyone wanted to see it or might be interested.
On October 28 2011 07:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: So in order to give food to someone you have to make sure they think the same way you do? Is it enough that they go through the motions and pretend to care? If they hold up a sign will they be allowed to eat?
What a joke this is.
Sure, something like that seems reasonable. Wait what was so funny about this again?
On October 28 2011 05:23 relyt wrote: Here is a video of Peter Schiff at OWS. I know some of you might not like him or his views but I thought I would show this video anyway. Just to warn you of possible bias, he is a libertarian and this video is done by a libertarian youtube channel, so there might be some selection bias with the people they show him talking to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&feature=channel_video_title
This video made me think about the man who was talking about the definition of greed. The whole occupy Wall Street movement is based on greed and envy of the 99%. They are greedy for the profits of corporations to be put in their pockets. Student Loan forgiveness is greed. Wanting to give out others money to poor is greed.
Anyone that has any luxury while people around the world are hungry and homeless are greedy.
I'm not sure if you're espousing an extreme point in order for people to see that the point itself is extreme, or if you are actually earnestly saying what you think.
By that definition of greed, your post is greedy because you're basically asking people to read it when they have their own things to think about.
Besides, people here are hungry and homeless dude. and its not just getting better by itself.
Well this would make sense if our economic problems were simply limited to the rich owning all the money...
This isn't the problem though. The problem is we don't produce nearly enough to sustain our consumption.
Yeah there it is, i would think the majority of OWS people believe corruption, not the blatant currption of taking kick backs, but the relationship of money in our political system has benefited over the years the 1% the most, and that's why they became the 1%. You don't think that.
But yeah what i put out there is my beliefs on how to go about fixing that, but in detail i would need a lot of help to actually do something that make sense. My idea is for a Just government not a government built on absolutes ie ideals. I mean what was set forth in the constitution was good idea's but they are not absolutes, as the courts shown you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and yet we still have people claiming the constitution is infallible and completely void of being read in relation to the history of it's drafting.
Sorry for being nitpicky but it was my understanding that the reason you couldn't shout fire in a theater was that a theater is private property and it is up to the owner to institute whatever rules he feels like. Freedom of speech applies to the government not regulating what you say, instead of an individual having the right to say whatever he wants on your property.
On October 28 2011 05:23 relyt wrote: Here is a video of Peter Schiff at OWS. I know some of you might not like him or his views but I thought I would show this video anyway. Just to warn you of possible bias, he is a libertarian and this video is done by a libertarian youtube channel, so there might be some selection bias with the people they show him talking to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&feature=channel_video_title
This video made me think about the man who was talking about the definition of greed. The whole occupy Wall Street movement is based on greed and envy of the 99%. They are greedy for the profits of corporations to be put in their pockets. Student Loan forgiveness is greed. Wanting to give out others money to poor is greed.
Anyone that has any luxury while people around the world are hungry and homeless are greedy.
student loan forgiveness is greedy, after all who doesn't like paying off a loan for an education for half your life in which businesses and the government tell you, that you needs to obtain a life in the middle class.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." - Dom Helder Camara
Honestly they should be called the 1% as the majority of america wants these bums to pack up their shanty town and stop costing us tax payers money which will be used to clean up the defacement of our great city's.
The impetus behind the Occupy Wall Street movement - a vague sense that the rich are getting ever richer while everyone else suffers - was confirmed by a recent report from the Social Security Administration showing that while total employment and average wages remained stagnant, the number of people earning $1 million or more grew by 18% from 2009 to 2010. Those figures give real substance to the "We are the 99%" slogan, yet Republicans continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that if anything those "job creators" deserve an even greater share of our national income. The Tea Party, meanwhile, has launched its own "53%" movement, inexplicably rallying the working class to the defense of the wealthy. The one group rarely heard from in this rancorous debate is the 1%, whose incomes and taxes are its focus. I am one of them, and here is my perspective, which may surprise you.
Well this would make sense if our economic problems were simply limited to the rich owning all the money...
This isn't the problem though. The problem is we don't produce nearly enough to sustain our consumption.
Yeah there it is, i would think the majority of OWS people believe corruption, not the blatant currption of taking kick backs, but the relationship of money in our political system has benefited over the years the 1% the most, and that's why they became the 1%. You don't think that.
But yeah what i put out there is my beliefs on how to go about fixing that, but in detail i would need a lot of help to actually do something that make sense. My idea is for a Just government not a government built on absolutes ie ideals. I mean what was set forth in the constitution was good idea's but they are not absolutes, as the courts shown you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and yet we still have people claiming the constitution is infallible and completely void of being read in relation to the history of it's drafting.
Sorry for being nitpicky but it was my understanding that the reason you couldn't shout fire in a theater was that a theater is private property and it is up to the owner to institute whatever rules he feels like. Freedom of speech applies to the government not regulating what you say, instead of an individual having the right to say whatever he wants on your property.
No, it's a safety hazard, You have all the free speech you want as long as it doesn't directly endanger someone. Therefore, lying about fire in a theater isn't allowed the same way telling a blind person a busy street is clear isn't allowed.
Well this would make sense if our economic problems were simply limited to the rich owning all the money...
This isn't the problem though. The problem is we don't produce nearly enough to sustain our consumption.
Yeah there it is, i would think the majority of OWS people believe corruption, not the blatant currption of taking kick backs, but the relationship of money in our political system has benefited over the years the 1% the most, and that's why they became the 1%. You don't think that.
But yeah what i put out there is my beliefs on how to go about fixing that, but in detail i would need a lot of help to actually do something that make sense. My idea is for a Just government not a government built on absolutes ie ideals. I mean what was set forth in the constitution was good idea's but they are not absolutes, as the courts shown you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and yet we still have people claiming the constitution is infallible and completely void of being read in relation to the history of it's drafting.
Sorry for being nitpicky but it was my understanding that the reason you couldn't shout fire in a theater was that a theater is private property and it is up to the owner to institute whatever rules he feels like. Freedom of speech applies to the government not regulating what you say, instead of an individual having the right to say whatever he wants on your property.
You can't shout "FIRE!" because it causes a great deal of unnecessary hazard to the patrons in the theater. You're using free speech to willingly cause harm to other people.
On October 28 2011 05:23 relyt wrote: Here is a video of Peter Schiff at OWS. I know some of you might not like him or his views but I thought I would show this video anyway. Just to warn you of possible bias, he is a libertarian and this video is done by a libertarian youtube channel, so there might be some selection bias with the people they show him talking to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&feature=channel_video_title
The video was produced by an organization with a specific viewpoint. It doesn't help their viewpoint to air cogent, well articulated criticisms of it. We don't know if there were any such criticisms during this specific interview, but there have been thousands elsewhere: Just because this video gives a specific viewpoint, doesn't mean other well articulated viewpoints don't exist. You need to ask yourself what the purpose of creating this video was.
I don't know what you are trying to say. I said in my post that it is probably biased because it comes from a libertarian organization. I just posted the video here in case anyone wanted to see it or might be interested.
On October 28 2011 05:23 relyt wrote: Here is a video of Peter Schiff at OWS. I know some of you might not like him or his views but I thought I would show this video anyway. Just to warn you of possible bias, he is a libertarian and this video is done by a libertarian youtube channel, so there might be some selection bias with the people they show him talking to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&feature=channel_video_title
The video was produced by an organization with a specific viewpoint. It doesn't help their viewpoint to air cogent, well articulated criticisms of it. We don't know if there were any such criticisms during this specific interview, but there have been thousands elsewhere: Just because this video gives a specific viewpoint, doesn't mean other well articulated viewpoints don't exist. You need to ask yourself what the purpose of creating this video was.
I don't know what you are trying to say. I said in my post that it is probably biased because it comes from a libertarian organization. I just posted the video here in case anyone wanted to see it or might be interested.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: are you just trying to waste my time now? I've answered all of this before.
Not completely, but there has been a pretty consistent trend of the economy being in better shape the free'er the market is. A lot of countries in Europe right now actually have a less regulated economy than us (the "capitalists,") I'm talking about economy of course, not overall size of government. For example Switzerland is unapologetically capitalistic, and has been doing great, only recently has they had a slight economic decline when their Federal bank decided to print some money (for the first time in a long time,) but they have been doing great. Sweden has a pretty large government, but it has some largely unregulated industries (compared to the US at least,) and they're providing both their customers with high quality low cost products (thus raising the total wealth of their citizens,) and their workforce with fair wages and employment.
This is to a large extent not market-related... Arguing that Switzerland out of all nations isn't capitalistic is just non-sensical, you gotta bring in some real market related evidence for this.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: Labor rights are stupid. There are no special "employer rights" why should there be special "labor rights." All labor rights should be defined in the contract between business and the worker, contracts can be negotiated via unions. Unions are perfectly fine in a free market capitalist economy, as long as the government stays out of it.
Same thing (though less common because it is harder to manage an efficient union than it is to have a running legal department) happens on the side of unions. Too lazy to dig any up. Read on some of the adverse effects of teacher unions.
Therefore, both unions and businesses need legislation to check their power.
Teacher unions are supported by the government hence the adverse effects.
As for Walmart... they're indirectly supported by government policies... just like any other store that sells us foreign products... 1) Inflationary monetary policy/stimulus incite discretionary spending. 2) Immense regulations drastically increasing our costs of employment, destroying our ability to compete with foreign manufactorers. 3) Labor laws that are increasing costs of employment are also causing a lot of unemployment, which obviously gives businesses a lot of bargaining power over unions/people...
The situation right now is jsut such that it's impossible to find a job because no one wants to create one, and labor laws are the ones at fault, and then you cite Walmart policies which are only possible BECAUSE of the unemployment rate (in combination with them only needing low-skill workers, and selling foreign products, the supply of which is unaffected by our economy.)
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: Price gouging results in net loss of profits. Collusions always result in some of the members losing out on profits (while others get increased profits,) but even if the profits are redistributed, collusion simply increases the risk/reward of competing against them. It also costs significant amount of money to push your competition out of the market, it's not always a smart investment, and when it is successful it is generally due to your competitors having a less competitive business model in the first place.
First you say that monopolies increase the risk/reward of competition. I agree. To rewrite your last sentence, " It also costs significant amount of money to push a monopoly out of the market, it's not always a smart investment, and when it is successful it is generally due to your competitors having a less competitive business model(read: no luck in the patent section of the legal department) in the first place.
The reason monopolies increase the risk/reward of competition is because since monopolies by definition don't compete they don't have to minimize their marginal profits... However, when they are forced to compete their profits drop and expenditures go up from what they are normally, a lot of monopolies used to accomplish this by controlling their prices regionally based on where they're experiencing competition (they drop the prices there and hike them up elsewhere to make up for it,) however this is risky, because if you are suddenly forced to compete in several markets simultaneously, a monopoly which naturally grows fat in beauraracy during it's period of success starts to fall a apart.
This doesn't apply to a regular business in a free market situation because this business will already be minimizing their marginal profits to remain competitive.
Also free trade is a good deterrent to national monopolies.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: If people take out loans they can't pay back they will have to file bankruptcy, and then it is the BANK that loses money... Obviously the person also loses credit ratings, and etc. but the only reason those credit ratings exist is because when you are loaned some money it is the LENDER that bears the fiscal consequences of you defaulting, not you.
This is pure capitalist propaganda. A basic bank investment structure will still net exorbitant amounts of profit even without a bankruptcy system in place.
Actually, bankruptcy is what results in the bank losing money in the first place, because it wipes out a bank's asset largely unexpectedly.
If instead of bankruptcies, you would have to become their slave to pay off the debt like the person I quoted suggested then you'd be right about their loans being guaranteed to be paid (unless the person dies of course.)
It's funny then that the person with the account has no such assurance of safety for their own money from the bank (again, this limited assurance comes from government regulation).
The matter of assurance comes from competition amongst banks. Once again, banking is one of the most heavily propped up sectors in our economy today. In a free market banks would be forced to marginalize their profits like any other type of business, how would they do it? Well they'd have to decrease the spread of interests or get rid of some fees in order to remain competitive.
Also, while the bank uses their down payments on cars, and mortages, and time option payments on credit cards as theri form of "limited assurance," the bank on the other hand allows you to withdraw your deposit (your loan to the bank,) at any point of time that you wish, I feel like this type of freedom is worth something, afterall the bank can't immediately come after you for the money it lent you any time it wants to.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: The idea of bankruptcy is perfectably acceptible in a capitalist free market. Saying it's not a part of the capitalist free market, is like saying that the possibility of a person who owes money dying isn't something that's considered in capitalism... It is. That's why the bank wants to be paid interest, and creates the monthly payment systems for being paid back, it's so that if you die, or just don't have the money it can cut its losses.
Since there should be no regulation on this by the government, it is up to the Bank Account Holder's Association(BAHA) to act as the negotiating body between the account holder and the bank?
Or simply the people's choice. If a bank can maximize its total profits by decreasing their marginal profits through better rates for their custoemrs they will. And customers will be attracted to this deal.
Same goes for special securities a bank may offer. Of course it's importatn to realize that these securities are pretty dangerous/scam-friendly, because no matter what the bank promises you it still retains its right to declare bankruptcy, just liek a person does (except for with student loans looool. and what a failure THAT turned out to be.)
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: That's why it's a lot better when there are no complicated rules. You have the human rights which protect people's voice, property, freedom from slavery, and etc. and then you put the rest of the power in the hands of people. THe people have more bargaining power with the market than they do with the government. Creating regulations like you said yourself serves to benefit those who can afford to pay the lawyers to find ways to dodge the regulations.
This statement has some truth to it. In our current system, ~ the top 1% have the greatest power and the greatest ability to gain more power by dodging regulations. The next 9% below them have the rest of the bargaining power. This is from a pure monetary standpoint. Obviously the next 90% have SOCIAL bargaining power, but that is severely limited because our nation does not have a strong + unified social identity. In the system you propose, wealth grows exponentially because there is nothing to stop it. Unfortunately this only occurs to those who already have substantial capital (capital is a resource which delivers income without input. an example of this is land, or a patent collection) or assets. This means that you have to either be born rich, be lucky enough to be the first to capitalize on innovations, or win the lottery to accrue wealth.
Lol exponential growth for the rich? how do you conclude this? If you have land or patent collection or other assets... they're doing "something" yes they don't require a lot of management, but patents expire and become obsolete (and only reward you with relation to useful your patent is, so why shouldn't people be rewarded on thsi basis?)
Land requires maintanence in order to be useful.
There's no "easy" way to retain your capital. If you choose a path of low volatility you will have minimal gains and will have to live a very frugal lifestyle. In the end managing capital is also a marketable skill. If you have a lot of capital and you manage it well you can get a lot more money, and if you manage it poorly you can lose it. And managing capital is a position in the marketplace that helps facilitate all of production, so it's not like people are just sitting on their ass getting richer and richer.
Also, what's wrong with inheritance? It's a basic human desire, and a large portion of what one would interpret as a pursuit towards happiness to be able to leave this earth leaving as much as you can for your children.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: Let's look at a simplifed example. 90% of the MONEY is in the hands of the few, and they are sitting on it, not willing to spend it. 10% of the money in the country is in the hands of the poor and they're spending all of it just to get by on all the products that exist in the marketplace.
Current supply meets current demand
Not necessarily. If the supply was bigger the prices would drop, and if the demand is elastic, then the demand would grow in order to consume the supply.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: Now say the wealthy decide to spend all their money... the effective monetary supply all of a sudden increase 10 times, but the amount of goods available remains the same... this means that every all the goods on average will becoem 10 times more expensive... but will the poor actually have 10 times the money to afford the same amount of stuff as they did before? No they won't.
This is an amazingly unrealistic situation, as there is no motivation for the wealthy to convert their capital into money into goods. Yes, a superfast redistribution of wealth will cause inflation. There is no incentive for that to happen. If it did, it would also cause an increase in demand for items associated with standard of living, which would, along with the cessation of money being printed, eventually bring the buying power of the dollar back up to a more normative value.
It's a simplified situation, it doesn't matter much whether it happens fast or slow.
This is the same effect that stimulus has. Whether it's through forceful redistribution of wealth via taxes and wellfare, or through printing money by the FED. you increase the money supply you don't increase production, it just results in inflation.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: It's the lack of production.
It's actually the lack of sweatshops. Businesses have little incentive to have production facilities here rather than in China, with the exceptions of transport and tariff concerns. Therefore, freeing the market regulation would not create jobs in the United States. It will create plenty of low paying jobs in China though.
LOL? getting rid of our labor laws won't create any jobs in China. And you're simply wrong, there's tons of costs related to bringing in the Chinese goods into America, and a lot of those could be avoided with American production. I don't think you understand how much compliance and liability businesses need to go through here in order to be able to hire with any sense of security, and how much money it costs.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: If they live off low percent interest and don't spend most of their money, how much wealth are they actually consuming? Say you have enough money in principle to get 100k$ a year via interest, so you just live off the interest and don't spend any of the principle ...
Sure, you can be totally lazy, and not do anything at all productive in life, but you're techinically living off the dividends from the investments that the bank makes with money you gave it, if you didn't have all that money in the bank, the bank would have less of a money supply, and it would be forced to higher the interest rates, which would make it harder for new businesses that took loans from the bank for starting capital to succeed. So you're technically helping the society by both allowing your money to be spent by other people, AND by not increasing the demand which results in lower prices for other people that do want to spend, the 100k$ interest is the dividends you get for this. Then if you only spend 100k a year, you're only consuming as much wealth as a person who makes 100k$ a year normally, so you can't live the life of a more rich person unless you're willing to spend more of your money.
Flawed assumption in that you assume that money spent is not going to return right back to bank. Sure, there might be one or two people/businesses keeping their money in a mattress, but that probably won't affect too much...
Nope. In a free market the majority of the money goes to whoever produced the product that was purchased. Free market in the banking industry will help eliminate the fattened banks that have large marginal profits thanks to protection from the government.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: You'er gonna argue that you're getting money doing nothing, but what you gotta realize is that no one wants to get money just to have a bunch of paper, people get money so that they could spend it, people work, which creates some kind of value, then they get paid based of some percentage fo the value they create, and then using that money they can consume roughly as that percentage of wealth that they created... it's a closed system in this way. All money that exists is supposed to be responsible for a certain piece of the total wealth (actual stuff.)
The problem with this is that the percentage of perceived value skyrockets for the higher income brackets.
...
Obviously, that's the definition of having a higher income. If you think the people at the top are getting paid too much, well then maybe it's time to finally allow free market competition again to help take care of this.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: Not being able to find jobs because of over-regulation doesn't help the bottom either. Companies getting bail-outs doesn't help the bottom either.
Bailouts yes, jobs lost due to regulation, no. Our job problem is more societal then political. The american dream just doesn't have anything in it about working for $3 a day in a shoe factory. There is a giant social stigma against blue collar jobs in this country and this is what props up minimum wage laws. Doing away with minimum wage would only be possible with a massive societal shift in values.
Yeah... no. A person would prefer to work a blue collar job than starve. i don't think the lower class is concerned with the American dream anymore, they're concerned the extremely high percent of unemployment.
The minimum wage low discriminates against both the unemployed and employers.
A lot of people either don't at all consider its consequences, or still have hope of actually finding themselves a minimum wage job so they are in favor of increasing the minimum wage or letting it be. In reality it's not such a great labor regulation. Not the worst one though.
On October 28 2011 03:12 Kiarip wrote: Capitalism tries to ensure that people get paid according to what they produce. There will always be a bottom 99%, a bottom 90%, a bottom 10 %, and a bottom 1%, that's just due to the laws of mathematics.
Please read: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html We are talking about the distribution of wealth. Yes, there will always be wealthy and poor. However the distribution is currently very uneven. The European countries you mentioned, Sweden and Switzerland, are ranked by their Gini coeffiecient (a statistical measure of inequality) as 1st and 42nd respectively. We are ranked 93rd.
and we have the most coproratism, and regulation of economy of the 3 nations involved.
For anyone reading the NYP article about kitchen volunteers upset:
(1) NYP is trash. It is a Rupert Murdoch tabloid. It is not a journal of reputable opinion. It publishes openly racist and hateful leads on its cover. It is lower than Fox News in credibility.
(2) There is a real issue of the homeless and persons unrelated to the political actions hanging around protest encampments and getting in line for a free meal (although somewhat minor considering the daily rate of food donations from individuals and restaurants). Some people are just working people passing by who see nice food and take it because it's free, and then hit up a Starbucks or restaurant later. I think every encampment differs on this issue. I know that DC's Freedom Plaza has been happy to feed the homeless when there is excessive food -- and they're loath to ask "did you participate in any of today's protests," but there are people who come back again and again throughout the day because they want to fill their bellies given that they don't know where their next meal is coming from. There are also rare instances of theft and douchebag behavior. DC "solved" this problem by tightening the hours that meals are served and may also adopt prioritization of activists to the front of the line. In general, meal donations and prepared items can only serve 50-100 persons so getting back in line for second or third helpings is frowned upon.
Well this would make sense if our economic problems were simply limited to the rich owning all the money...
This isn't the problem though. The problem is we don't produce nearly enough to sustain our consumption.
Yeah there it is, i would think the majority of OWS people believe corruption, not the blatant currption of taking kick backs, but the relationship of money in our political system has benefited over the years the 1% the most, and that's why they became the 1%. You don't think that.
But yeah what i put out there is my beliefs on how to go about fixing that, but in detail i would need a lot of help to actually do something that make sense. My idea is for a Just government not a government built on absolutes ie ideals. I mean what was set forth in the constitution was good idea's but they are not absolutes, as the courts shown you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and yet we still have people claiming the constitution is infallible and completely void of being read in relation to the history of it's drafting.
Sorry for being nitpicky but it was my understanding that the reason you couldn't shout fire in a theater was that a theater is private property and it is up to the owner to institute whatever rules he feels like. Freedom of speech applies to the government not regulating what you say, instead of an individual having the right to say whatever he wants on your property.
You can't shout "FIRE!" because it causes a great deal of unnecessary hazard to the patrons in the theater. You're using free speech to willingly cause harm to other people.
This is it, the KKK can legally march on DC and be as disgusting and racist as they want, just as long as they do not incite violence, although with DC being what 70% black them just being there probably incites violence XD. Violent speech is not tolerated, think about it for a second you know it's true, tell your co woker that you are going to disembowel them and shit on their corpse for their incompetence, and you'll soon get a call from the police and probably slapped with a restraining order.
A just government is more important then a government built on absolutes, which is why simple doesn't cut it for me as life isn't simple there are lots of shades of gray. There are quite a few limitations of freedom of speech and what counts as speech. The courts in which i agree with in their interpretation of the 1st amendment is that you are not limited with it comes to talking about politics. The government cannot limit you from saying the truth about government etc. Some reason people forget where this comes from, ie the original war of independence, which is were the 2nd amendment comes from and clearly is meant for state militia when taken into historical context. Yet people read it as completely literal, probably the same people who read the bible to be literal.
Such a load of bullsh**. These protests are causing more problems than fixing them. Everyone wants something different, this was supposed to be a grass roots movement yet theres 2.5 million invested in keeping it running. This protest will do absolutely nothing but waste time, and resources, like it has already. These protesters are the 99% of leeches in our society.
If nothing else, I think it is good that people are finally starting to care and pay attention. We were getting close to a Brave New World esque scenario.
I also happen to agree with their message. The rich keep getting richer, and they do it by risking other people's money. Why should someone who is talented with finances be entitled to more money than someone who's talented or works in another field? It's all very random, and this outburst of anger is a result of that arbitrary distribution of wealth becoming an even bigger problem as a result of the incessant risk taking of the past few years.
If the wall street bankers were a Starcraft race, they'd be early release terran who go 5racks reeaper every game. Big rewards, little risk. People just want blizz to patch it ffs!
On October 28 2011 07:52 v3chr0 wrote: Such a load of bullsh**. These protests are causing more problems than fixing them. Everyone wants something different, this was supposed to be a grass roots movement yet theres 2.5 million invested in keeping it running. This protest will do absolutely nothing but waste time, and resources, like it has already. These protesters are the 99% of leeches in our society.
EPT
