|
Hi guys sorry for the very uneducated post about my government, but after reading the op and seeing this. I have a question It is not directed to the occupy movement in any way shape or form but I feel that this is the best place to ask. Considering I am pressed for time at the moment and cannot do a thorough search on the internet.
On September 18 2011 09:41 Reborn8u wrote:
The "people with the guns" follow orders, that is all. They WILL completely ignore your rights when ordered to.
The constitution clearly states that only congress can declare war, last time that happened was WWII, how many wars have we been in since? The supreme court ruled in the 70's that a warrant must be obtained to wire tap, congress over ruled that with the patriot act. Which they don't actually have the power to do, but guess what, they did it anyway. Freedom of expression and speech are also in the constitution, but our government sensors television, which is also a direct violation of the constitution. The constitution guarantees you the right to a lawyer and a trial, but if you are labeled an enemy combatant you are denied all of these rights and they've done it to at least one American citizen already. By the way, there is no criteria for being labeled an "enemy combatant" our government can give this label to whomever they choose and are not required to disclose a reason.
I want to ask, is this in any way similiar to (if canada even has any) a canadian law in the same subject? I am wondering because I am a web developer and sometimes get asked to design websites that may be "frowned upon" I do not accept the jobs ofcourse but I am wondering about the What if's, Thanks.
|
On November 15 2011 05:39 Ace.Xile wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:29 Grumbels wrote:
Why should OWS come up with an alternative? The solutions are out there. On virtually any issue in the world there's a vast amount of academic literature as to what would be a sensible course of action, from environmental to economic policies. Coming up with the solutions is not OWS' task, it's simply a demonstration of not agreeing with the political culture of the USA and possibly its culture in general. I read some description that said: "It's the closest thing to going on strike at your culture we have." Yes it is, If you're going to whine and bitch and ironically WASTE resource (pay for police to make sure things stay non-violent, disruption of business and peoples daily lives) that you claim the government is wasting, you better dam straight have a solution. Otherwise you're just some kid screaming for attention.
Sorry, but you sound like you lost all sense of idealism and romanticism. The world does not get better one policy proposal at the time, first a culture that can facilitate implementing these proposals must be created. Don't you think there's hope for a better world? And should people that fight for such a world be attacked with (of all things) "omg, you're wasting taxpayers money!11"? Evidently so, I think. After all, if such attacks (you are sustained by the very system you're attacking - somewhat similar in scope as: "so you use bank cards but protest wall street? lol?) would never come, I would question the necessity of the movement, but it seems that the opposition to the movement really shows why they're such a positive force. I hope that wasn't all too paradoxical. 
|
On November 15 2011 05:29 Grumbels wrote:
Coming up with the solutions is not OWS' task, it's simply a demonstration of not agreeing with the political culture of the USA and possibly its culture in general. I read some description that said: "It's the closest thing to going on strike at your culture we have."
So, going by that description, OWS is a bunch of people saying "I don't like the economy so I'm going to sit here and pout about it"?
|
On November 15 2011 05:29 Grumbels wrote:
Why should OWS come up with an alternative? The solutions are out there. On virtually any issue in the world there's a vast amount of academic literature as to what would be a sensible course of action, from environmental to economic policies. Coming up with the solutions is not OWS' task, it's simply a demonstration of not agreeing with the political culture of the USA and possibly its culture in general. I read some description that said: "It's the closest thing to going on strike at your culture we have."
Why should they come up with an alternative? Because coming up with an alternative is adding some value. Sitting there and pointing fingers at what is bad without doing something to fix it is a giant waste of energy and resources.
Key word there is academic. I'm more interested in real world solutions.
Your view of what is an ideal economic system are bound to be a bit warped by how awesome Norway is.
Norway is an shining example of how things could be and what we should all strive for. Great education, great social services, low unemployment, a balanced national budget.
However Norway has significant advantages that not many other countries have.
#1 Vast oil income relative to the size of the small population
#2 Very small population (4.8 Million in the US New York alone is almost double that)
#3 Small % of GDP spent on defense
#4 Low rate of immigration.
Being Norway is not cheap and the US can not afford it.
|
On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they?
|
On November 15 2011 05:52 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they?
There are many forms of capitalism. Penny capitalism, crony capitalsim (corporate capitalsim), etc.
If anything, I would argue that the group is protesting the fact that these financial institutions are living outside of the rules of capitalism. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. It is about injustice and lack of opportunity. It is about corruption in government agencies who are supposed to be watchdog and regulatory safeguards. It is about public officials who make laws that deregulate or enable fraud, and then quit public life to take lucrative positions in private firms. It is about many things.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On November 15 2011 05:38 Ace.Xile wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:On November 15 2011 05:16 mechavoc wrote:My Real big question for the OWS people is what is your proposed alternative system?It is always much easier to be against something and point out the flaws in a plan or system. It is much much harder to be for something and propose realistic/practical solutions to problems. As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others. It is interesting looking at the OWS camps as a microcosm of the larger economic problems a society faces. They obviously have the best of intentions and socialism works very well in small settings (Families are a successful socialist endeavor) but fail in larger groups because people exploit others. The OWS camps themselves demonstrated this as they seemed to work out well at the start, but as the group grows larger problems manifest. Homelesspeople joining them for the free food tax the OWS’s ability to feed everyone at the camps, Disease issues ( tuberculosis), Serious crime with reports of drug use, rape, several deaths, and finally in true ironic form legal issues about copyright for the term Occupy ..., sources/uses of money etc.. So if they can't even get their act together to create their utopia on the small scale what can they possibly offer society to solve issues on the large scale.... ? So in the end what value are they adding As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.OWS isn't anticapitalism. It is interesting looking at the OWS camps as a microcosm of the larger economic problems a society faces. This makes no sense whatsoever. These things will happen at any protest with this many people. I thought that was pretty much the driving factor behind all of the OWS movement, that they were mad that the rich were getting richer and the poor not. I thought they believed that it was the cause of government business interaction, which i suppose is part of the problem but it doesn't change the fact that capitalism inherently works by making companies hugely powerful who are successful.
The desire to mitigate the impact of poverty is not a contradiction of the capitalist system. One can adhere to capitalism and yet wish to help out the poor through structural, governmental changes and still be pro-capitalist. It's a false dilemma to then call the OWS anti-capitalist.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations even deals with this and everyone seems to point back to him to the Invisible Hand etc.
Book 5
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." emphasis mine.
Smith even was concerned about the sort of collusion that OWS are concerned about. Book 1
"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate..."
"Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people."
The masters "never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen."
In addition, people have used Smith to argue both for and against minimum wage (Pitt vs Whitbread). If Smith is more nuanced then modern commentators will let on, then perhaps we are allowed to be as well.
|
On November 15 2011 05:50 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:29 Grumbels wrote:
Why should OWS come up with an alternative? The solutions are out there. On virtually any issue in the world there's a vast amount of academic literature as to what would be a sensible course of action, from environmental to economic policies. Coming up with the solutions is not OWS' task, it's simply a demonstration of not agreeing with the political culture of the USA and possibly its culture in general. I read some description that said: "It's the closest thing to going on strike at your culture we have." Why should they come up with an alternative? Because coming up with an alternative is adding some value. Sitting there and pointing fingers at what is bad without doing something to fix it is a giant waste of energy and resources. Key word there is academic. I'm more interested in real world solutions. Your view of what is an ideal economic system are bound to be a bit warped by how awesome Norway is. Norway is an shining example of how things could be and what we should all strive for. Great education, great social services, low unemployment, a balanced national budget. However Norway has significant advantages that not many other countries have. #1 Vast oil income relative to the size of the small population #2 Very small population (4.8 Million in the US New York alone is almost double that) #3 Small % of GDP spent on defense #4 Low rate of immigration. Being Norway is not cheap and the US can not afford it.
Many of the issues that the US is currently undergoing are fundamentally related to their inability to look into the larger systemic issues at play in their legal and legislative systems. It isn't enough that you deal with issues like the economy on their own because issues will recreate themselves if the systemic reasons which created the current economic conditions aren't remedied.
At this point, the real world solutions are academic solutions. Pragmatism is great when you need to tweak things, not so great when you're attempting to design a system of governance.
|
On November 15 2011 05:50 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:29 Grumbels wrote:
Why should OWS come up with an alternative? The solutions are out there. On virtually any issue in the world there's a vast amount of academic literature as to what would be a sensible course of action, from environmental to economic policies. Coming up with the solutions is not OWS' task, it's simply a demonstration of not agreeing with the political culture of the USA and possibly its culture in general. I read some description that said: "It's the closest thing to going on strike at your culture we have." Why should they come up with an alternative? Because coming up with an alternative is adding some value. Sitting there and pointing fingers at what is bad without doing something to fix it is a giant waste of energy and resources. Key word there is academic. I'm more interested in real world solutions. Your view of what is an ideal economic system are bound to be a bit warped by how awesome Norway is. Norway is an shining example of how things could be and what we should all strive for. Great education, great social services, low unemployment, a balanced national budget. However Norway has significant advantages that not many other countries have. #1 Vast oil income relative to the size of the small population #2 Very small population (4.8 Million in the US New York alone is almost double that) #3 Small % of GDP spent on defense #4 Low rate of immigration. Being Norway is not cheap and the US can not afford it.
Why do you bring up Norway? Did you misread my location?
Also, the line about academic versus real world solutions is pretty silly. By definition real-world solutions will just be things agreed upon by whoever constitute the status quo, it won't necessarily have any relation to sound policy. Take health care, for instance. It's known from research that the USA health care system is fairly bad and that it could be improved in a number of ways. None of those ways are realistic, because of the corrupt political system which blocks changes detrimental to, say, pharma and health insurance companies. However, you could shout down any discussion of how to improve the system with the line: "stop this academic nonsense, I only want to talk about real-world solutions".
About your points:
#1 Is hardly relevant, lots of countries do well with little to no natural resources. Libya has a lot of oil, but it's not doing too great last time I checked. And the USA has tons of natural resources themselves.
#2 Why would this matter? Why would policies that work for 10 million people suddenly stop working for 100 million?
#3 This is obviously an issue, but it's not like anyone is forcing the USA to spend a zillion a year on defense. That happens because the government isn't responsive to the actual needs of the people, preferring to play global empire games that benefit corporations. It's something the Occupy movement is, or should be, protesting against.
#4 I don't see how this matters. Maybe I'm uninformed, but I really doubt that illegal immigration or whatever is the one great cost that stops the USA from being able to provide for its citizens. In general, nobody is asking for unlimited prosperity, just that what does exist is divided fairly.
|
On November 15 2011 05:52 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they?
No need for back and forth.
There are prominent socialists backing OWS. The militant (outgoing, not violent) activist youth tend to take on many different radical politics, including anarchists.
That said, the meat and potatoes of the movement is people that are just fed up with corruption in government and want justice, the restoration of the rule of law. If you listen to people and read up on government, policy, and history, you'll learn that there are real grievances being expressed by the movement that are ignored by conventional power.
People complain about capitalism because it is the prevalence of greed and wealthy influence in power that blocks democratic voices, and those that defend the system argue a moral imperative of markets to be free and for money to have free speech. The OWS movement's message is legitimate when democratically-supported price floors, anti-trust regulations, assertion of the public's right to public goods & services (things that we payed for but have been taken out of our control), the right to collectively bargain... all of these things are taken away from citizens while business people & politicians argue that it's infringing on the free speech of moneyed interests.
You don't have to hate capitalism to love democracy.
|
On November 15 2011 05:52 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they?
the problem is that it's captialism for the working people and socialism for the super rich owners aka banking/capital market interest.
|
On November 15 2011 06:03 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:52 mechavoc wrote:On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they? There are many forms of capitalism. Penny capitalism, crony capitalsim (corporate capitalsim), etc. If anything, I would argue that the group is protesting the fact that these financial institutions are living outside of the rules of capitalism. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. It is about injustice and lack of opportunity. It is about corruption in government agencies who are supposed to be watchdog and regulatory safeguards. It is about public officials who make laws that deregulate or enable fraud, and then quit public life to take lucrative positions in private firms. It is about many things.
Ok good response , but still leads to my confusion,
I agree 100% that bailing out banks is not real capitalism it is politics.
But my confusion comes from the protest against banks, it is in the bank’s nature to do what they did. They did not give themselves bailouts, politicians gave them bailouts.
So why is this occupy Wall Street and not occupy Washington DC?
|
On November 15 2011 06:31 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 06:03 screamingpalm wrote:On November 15 2011 05:52 mechavoc wrote:On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they? There are many forms of capitalism. Penny capitalism, crony capitalsim (corporate capitalsim), etc. If anything, I would argue that the group is protesting the fact that these financial institutions are living outside of the rules of capitalism. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. It is about injustice and lack of opportunity. It is about corruption in government agencies who are supposed to be watchdog and regulatory safeguards. It is about public officials who make laws that deregulate or enable fraud, and then quit public life to take lucrative positions in private firms. It is about many things. Ok good response , but still leads to my confusion, I agree 100% that bailing out banks is not real capitalism it is politics. But my confusion comes from the protest against banks, it is in the bank’s nature to do what they did. They did not give themselves bailouts, politicians gave them bailouts. So why is this occupy Wall Street and not occupy Washington DC?
You know, a simple Google search would waste none of our time with ignorant comments. Please educate yourself before making argumentative posts.
http://occupydc.org/
http://october2011.org/
http://www.occupytogether.org/
|
On November 15 2011 06:31 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 06:03 screamingpalm wrote:On November 15 2011 05:52 mechavoc wrote:On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they? There are many forms of capitalism. Penny capitalism, crony capitalsim (corporate capitalsim), etc. If anything, I would argue that the group is protesting the fact that these financial institutions are living outside of the rules of capitalism. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. It is about injustice and lack of opportunity. It is about corruption in government agencies who are supposed to be watchdog and regulatory safeguards. It is about public officials who make laws that deregulate or enable fraud, and then quit public life to take lucrative positions in private firms. It is about many things. Ok good response , but still leads to my confusion, I agree 100% that bailing out banks is not real capitalism it is politics. But my confusion comes from the protest against banks, it is in the bank’s nature to do what they did. They did not give themselves bailouts, politicians gave them bailouts. So why is this occupy Wall Street and not occupy Washington DC?
If it is in the nature of an entity to destroy society, then society's desire to preserve itself will result an attempt to neuter that entity. The inclusion of Wall Street from that entity does not preclude the inclusion of DC.
|
On November 15 2011 06:31 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 06:03 screamingpalm wrote:On November 15 2011 05:52 mechavoc wrote:On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they? There are many forms of capitalism. Penny capitalism, crony capitalsim (corporate capitalsim), etc. If anything, I would argue that the group is protesting the fact that these financial institutions are living outside of the rules of capitalism. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. It is about injustice and lack of opportunity. It is about corruption in government agencies who are supposed to be watchdog and regulatory safeguards. It is about public officials who make laws that deregulate or enable fraud, and then quit public life to take lucrative positions in private firms. It is about many things. Ok good response , but still leads to my confusion, I agree 100% that bailing out banks is not real capitalism it is politics. But my confusion comes from the protest against banks, it is in the bank’s nature to do what they did. They did not give themselves bailouts, politicians gave them bailouts. So why is this occupy Wall Street and not occupy Washington DC?
It's how you look at it, when talking about government chances are the higher the office you hold the more likely you are to be a millionaire or better. Ofc advisers and appointed officials are also at the top, ofc there is the argument of these people know what they are doing and thus are chosen but at the same time it's the argument of conflict of interest, if you're advising in the very field to which you make all your money in still. The problem is the appearance in society that government and big business is ran by a small group of elite for the most part, which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't set on helping themselves before helping the masses.
|
On November 15 2011 06:19 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 05:52 mechavoc wrote:On November 15 2011 05:26 Nothingtosay wrote:
As the old saying goes capitalism is the worst system of distribution, with the exception of all others.
OWS isn't anticapitalism.
Then what are they? No need for back and forth. ..... That said, the meat and potatoes of the movement is people that are just fed up with corruption in government and want justice, the restoration of the rule of law. If you listen to people and read up on government, policy, and history, you'll learn that there are real grievances being expressed by the movement that are ignored by conventional power. People complain about capitalism because it is the prevalence of greed and wealthy influence in power that blocks democratic voices, and those that defend the system argue a moral imperative of markets to be free and for money to have free speech. The OWS movement's message is legitimate when democratically-supported price floors, anti-trust regulations, assertion of the public's right to public goods & services (things that we payed for but have been taken out of our control), the right to collectively bargain... all of these things are taken away from citizens while business people & politicians argue that it's infringing on the free speech of moneyed interests. You don't have to hate capitalism to love democracy.
I really like the back and forth and you are making good points.
My point is why is it Banks and Wall Street and the scapegoat 1% that are the targets ?
They do what they should do maximize profit, it is politics that have become corrupted, having tax payers protect bad companies.
Why isn't this Occupy DC ? The Democrats and Republicans are the ones who warped capitalism.
As a Any Rand loving capitalist who would love nothing more than to be the 1% of the 1% I get all of the anger at the politicians but not at the companies.
It is insane to me that our government set up the system for companies to reap all of the benefits of the capitalist system in the boom times, and the only check and balance that the capitalist system has (bad companies going out of business ) in bad time.
|
Well if you don't know, one of the reasons, maybe main reason, why Occupy Oakland has been dealt with increased police hostility is due to the protests and riots of the shooting death of Oscar Grant in the past few years. Looters and anarchists use opportunities like this to get what they want out of it. One riot had most of the people arrested not even residing in the City of Oakland. I agree that the increased aggression is uncalled for, but I guess they're trying to minimize the amount of damage looters and rioters do with the Occupy movement. Oakland is well known for it's crime, because when I was living in the bay area, I always saw crime reports coming from Oakland.
|
I thought the point of a forum was to have a nice back and forth discussion on a particular topic.
Also it is nice of you to come out and characterize my posts as "ignorant and argumentative" since it does not apear to agree with your point of view. (Though from your prior responses I think we have significant common ground).
So you recomend using google search as a replacement for person to person discussion?
|
On November 15 2011 06:38 L wrote:
If it is in the nature of an entity to destroy society, then society's desire to preserve itself will result an attempt to neuter that entity. The inclusion of Wall Street from that entity does not preclude the inclusion of DC.
So you are saying it is the nature of a corporations to act solely to maximize short term profits even at the risk of destroying themselves, and that since there are no natural predators for the poorly run Too Big To Fail company people need to take to the streets and become a visible invisible hand ?
I would argue Capitalism has a mechanism to deal with this in the long term but bailouts from the GOVT put a stop to that. For an example of this in action think about Enron.
And the second item is people can be both mad at Corps. and Politicians. Ok but why did this start with the companies ?
|
Why isn't this Occupy DC ? The Democrats and Republicans are the ones who warped capitalism.
I suppose in a sense it is going directly to the belly of the beast (do you call out the puppet or the one pulling its strings?). Politicians are little more than paid puppets to create legislation that benefits and enables the fraud being commited. Although, it's not only Wall Street playing this game... PhRMA writing Obamacare, for example. I think if you "follow the money" it should be clear however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
