|
On November 16 2011 10:58 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 16 2011 10:38 TanGeng wrote:On November 16 2011 10:34 Boblion wrote:On November 16 2011 10:25 TanGeng wrote:On November 16 2011 10:23 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 16 2011 10:14 TanGeng wrote:On November 16 2011 09:12 HellRoxYa wrote:On November 16 2011 09:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well. Sure, but there's also reasonable levels of reward. Very few people (anywhere) argue that hard work shouldn't pay off. Anyway, to answer your question more generally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice Is this Rousseau's social contract because that is probably the epitome of an unscalable social construct. It's curious at the level of a district or town, stretched thin at the size of a city, barely plausible for 5 million people, and completely ridiculous for 300 million. You might be a popular person and have good relations with 10,000 people and that's still not scratching 1/100 of one percent of everyone that you are "supposed to care about." The dominate relationship is indifference, not some imaginary sensation that we're all in it together and everyone bar none is going to be acting with both generosity and good faith. It's like forcing 100 total strangers to come up with ways to care about each other while prohibiting them from ever ever seeing each other once in their lifetime. Then muddy the waters with issues of race and religion, toss in some stereotypes of rednecks, liburals, repub, grifters, and greedy bastards, and then watch "caring" happen. Besides, there'll be plenty of people taking advantage of the imagined up generosity and good faith. The bailouts were passed under the guise of the common good or greater good and look how happy people are about that. But discussing distributive justice is still worthwhile. It's a nice ideal to build society towards, and the world would be hell of a lot better if people acted with both generosity and good faith. Distributive justice, however, is not actionable via an imaginary social contract. Imaginary social contract? Nothing you said has anything at all to do with Rawls other than the words distributive justice.
Like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition. However, Rawls' social contract takes a slightly different view from that of previous thinkers. Specifically, Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an entirely and deliberately artificial device he calls the Original position in which everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what their notion of justice is
That is from your own link, right? There is not one theory of the Social Contract and the differences between Hobbes and Rousseau are HUGE lol, i don't think that Hobbes considered the economic aspect whereas Rousseau advocates the abolition of the property in Discours sur le fondement de l'inégalité parmi les hommes.Rousseau's Social Contract is designed for pre industrial cities like his main source of inspiration, Geneva where direct democracy worked to some extend. However Rousseau was conscious of the limits of his own theory, you just need to take a look to his late works like his projects of constitution for Corsica and Poland. Actually, my question is about scalability. In all variants, there are limited enforcement of good faith utility of the social contract. Difference in derivation or policy doesn't concern scalability problems. They will, however, change the threshold when bad faith exploitation of social contract dominates and when the society is too big for the intimacy of relationships implied by the "social contract." You should probably pick the book up and read it. If you want to keep discussing Rousseau then please do so but for the love of god don't speculate about Rawls work with Rousseau as a starting base. So you, who brought up Rawl's A Theory of Justice, do you have Rawl's rebuttal? Rousseau's social contract would break down very fast. It looks like Rawl's doesn't have such glaring overreaches, but if it is a social contract, it always begs the question of its scalability. It'd only be interesting read if Rawls tried to address it. If Rawls didn't, I'd doubt its efficacy for a city, never mind consider it a valid proposal for a politic like the US.
You still link Rawls with Rousseau. That's why I recommend you actually read the book instead of speculate. As for your question I have not heard any criticism of scale application of his theory as it's a general theory of distributive justice, not a concrete model for society. The biggest criticism stems from Nozick (wiki talks about him, no?) who has a completely different theory of justice where everything has to do with fair acquisition, which carries its own problems. I still highly recommend you to read the book or a good summary of it.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 16 2011 09:12 HellRoxYa wrote:
You still link Rawls with Rousseau. That's why I recommend you actually read the book instead of speculate. As for your question I have not heard any criticism of scale application of his theory as it's a general theory of distributive justice, not a concrete model for society. The biggest criticism stems from Nozick (wiki talks about him, no?) who has a completely different theory of justice where everything has to do with fair acquisition, which carries its own problems. I still highly recommend you to read the book or a good summary of it.
Ok, I'll put it on a list of books to read for a vision of distributive justice. The synthesis of game theory's neutral minmax into a conception of fairness and distributive justice sounds very unique. A pleasurable diversion for sure.
The biggest flaw of distributive justice is not any criticism found by Nozick but the non "original position" of the agents of its justice.
If it isn't a concrete model for society, it isn't the answer that you posed it to be:
On November 16 2011 09:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well.
|
I started my post by explaining that practically noone is arguing that hard work shouldn't pay off. Since the question then is not about if hard work should pay off but to what degree (fully, ie. keep everything, or different variations of partially keeping your 'reward', or maybe even being given 'extra', perhaps with the motivation that it'll make everyone work harder to themselves be so priviledged) Rawls suddenly becomes highly relevant.
I will agree, though, that it's not a complete argument. I would just, if I was Superiorwolf arguing with my friend, find my starting point in Rawls or a similar conception. In his book Rawls speaks about the lottery that is life. That some people are predispositioned to be more hard working, smart or social than others - in short things which often advance your career. He combines this with the lottery of what family, status and wealth you are born in to. This has profound effects for your chances in life and you have had no say in either of these lotteries. So... there's that. Depending on the source of wealth one might add general luck to the equation aswell. Starting your own company isn't just about working hard.
|
Does anyone know how many police officers are stationed near the protests?
|
On November 16 2011 10:29 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 09:57 WhiteDog wrote:On November 16 2011 09:47 mechavoc wrote:On November 16 2011 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:
This thread is so full of brain washed right wing bullshit it's amazing. You shall not protest because "small business and commerce" suffer from it. When a a judge issue an injunction that goes with the protest, then it's a "bullshit injunction" and the judge is just biaised. Yeah who cares if he is representing the law, if he help the protest in any way then he must but a "little OWSer at heart".
But damn, when people are arrested, they just get what they wanted for not "respecting the law".
Another guy wants protests to become illegal, and then say revolutions are "un-american"... So making protests illegal is american ? Give the lady of Liberty to someone else, feel like you are not deserving it anymore.
The shit is not serious. Just say you are okay with the way the wealth is redistributed right now, and move on. Stop polluting the thread. Just because people have a diffent view doesn't mean they are brainwashed. France has a long and proud history of protesting. They may be the worlds greatest protestors. So you would think it should be the best place to live with the people speaking so loudly and so often with all of those demonstrations and sit-ins and farmers blocking the chunnel . So shall we compare things like per capita GDP, Inflation, Unemployment rate? Your post doesn't make any sense. I was saying some are brainwashed because their argument are not coherent : "let's remove their right to protest !", this judge is "an OWSer at heart". We are not talking about the subject, just about : can you or can you not protest, why are the protesters "scum", how did the protest arm people, etc. It's just an indirect way to deny their right to protest, to tell them: "you should not protest". It's just polluting the thread. Talk about the real subject : are those revendication serious ? What are the protester talking about ? In what way are you against or okay with those revendications ? Like what people are discussing since one or two page, this is interesting. Not the obvious agressivity that comes out of some comments. You know nothing about France by the way, and the end of your post is ridiculous. At what point in my post did I even imply the fact that more protest = more happiness ? And what is the link with the economical shit you are trying to throw at me ? Do you think capita GPD, inflation or unemployment rate are the best way to understand what is the "best place to live" ? 1.People's right to protest is the most important right in the US, it is the first amendment. People have the right to free speech no one is contesting that. They do not however have the right to break laws and ignore rules for using public spaces in exercising that right. 2. Please educate me on France then. The thought that your initial post gave me was that more protesting leads to more progress in a society which in turn would lead to a higher standard of living. The Best place to live is usually measured in economic terms. For example I would say Norway has a higher standard of living than the US based on their clearly superior economic measures, along with their progressive social policies. I would think right now Norway is a better place to live than the US.
The best place to live is not mesured in economic terms. For exemple, we don't count health insurance in the GDP, we don't count the education too. That's why economics created mixed variable such as the Human Development Index (HDI) who is a composite statistic made of GDP, education (functional literacy) and health. But even the HDI is not enough, so people added the inequalities as avariables and created the HDII in 2010, which is the human development index adjusted to inequalities... and even those measure seems to be not enough, economics are still discussing on "how do you measure how good a country is".
Now about France, we have never been a country of "protest" (revolution maybe but that's another matter), it's just that (and it is shown by sociologue such as Charle Tilly) at a certain point in our history (1960 to 1980) we had strong syndicate, which huge founds and political power, and we had strong juridic protection so protests used to cost almost nothing for the protester.
Now it's not the case, there are no more protest in France, in fact nobody is syndicated in France (8% at best, 2% in the private). Things can still be different in the public sector but overall, I don't see where or how France is the country with the most protests (even though it's still an argument made by right wing politician to make people shut their mouth).
To prove my point, I wanted to give you a quick set of measure (from the ministery of defense, had to copy everything for you down there) :
Millions of days off-work :
From 1960 to 1967 : from 1 to 6 millions days
In 1968 (revolution) : 150 millions days
96 : 0,7
97 : 0,2
98 : 0,6
99 : 0,6
2002 : 0,2
2003 : 0,2
2004 : 0,2
2005 : 0,2
But yeah things will change, people are pissed. Also, there are no link between the standard of living and the protest rate.
On November 16 2011 13:45 HellRoxYa wrote:
I started my post by explaining that practically noone is arguing that hard work shouldn't pay off. Since the question then is not about if hard work should pay off but to what degree (fully, ie. keep everything, or different variations of partially keeping your 'reward', or maybe even being given 'extra', perhaps with the motivation that it'll make everyone work harder to themselves be so priviledged) Rawls suddenly becomes highly relevant.
I will agree, though, that it's not a complete argument. I would just, if I was Superiorwolf arguing with my friend, find my starting point in Rawls or a similar conception. In his book Rawls speaks about the lottery that is life. That some people are predispositioned to be more hard working, smart or social than others - in short things which often advance your career. He combines this with the lottery of what family, status and wealth you are born in to. This has profound effects for your chances in life and you have had no say in either of these lotteries. So... there's that. Depending on the source of wealth one might add general luck to the equation aswell. Starting your own company isn't just about working hard.
Life is lotery, yet social mobility in the USA is almost zero. It's not lottery, it is just set in stone. There is no level of "hard woking" that can fight against the social inequalities.
Rawls' theory of justice is just the easy way for some economist to justify the current situation. Or to only ask for marginal change (maximin). Rawls is useful in an essay, and that's it.
Because one shall not talk out of nowhere :
Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
From http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html
|
From my 3 months in france:
Your are a nation of protesters... At least your public sector. In Switzerland we would call public transport that strikes that often "not functional/useless"  .
It's possible that i had bad timing with my stay, but it was simply staggering how often the bus drivers where on strike.
|
On November 16 2011 18:03 Velr wrote:From my 3 months in france: Your are a nation of protesters... At least your public sector. In Switzerland we would call public transport that strikes that often "not functional/useless" . It's possible that i had bad timing with my stay, but it was simply staggering how often the bus drivers where on strike.
Yes public sector because they still have no real risk to go on a strike, but as I showed with the numbers, protests in France are almost over. You can watch the numbers here since you read French :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_social_en_France
To sum things up : the big big years of protest in France nowadays are not even like the smallest years of protest in France from 1960-1970.
|
On November 16 2011 17:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 13:45 HellRoxYa wrote:
I started my post by explaining that practically noone is arguing that hard work shouldn't pay off. Since the question then is not about if hard work should pay off but to what degree (fully, ie. keep everything, or different variations of partially keeping your 'reward', or maybe even being given 'extra', perhaps with the motivation that it'll make everyone work harder to themselves be so priviledged) Rawls suddenly becomes highly relevant.
I will agree, though, that it's not a complete argument. I would just, if I was Superiorwolf arguing with my friend, find my starting point in Rawls or a similar conception. In his book Rawls speaks about the lottery that is life. That some people are predispositioned to be more hard working, smart or social than others - in short things which often advance your career. He combines this with the lottery of what family, status and wealth you are born in to. This has profound effects for your chances in life and you have had no say in either of these lotteries. So... there's that. Depending on the source of wealth one might add general luck to the equation aswell. Starting your own company isn't just about working hard. Life is lotery, yet social mobility in the USA is almost zero. It's not lottery, it is just set in stone. There is no level of "hard woking" that can fight against the social inequalities. Rawls' theory of justice is just the easy way for some economist to justify the current situation. Or to only ask for marginal change (maximin). Rawls is useful in an essay, and that's it.
First of all, this is maximin.
Secondly, justifying the current situation by pointing to Rawls seems almost impossible to me and I doubt I will see anyone try. If life in general is lottery, which is what Rawls argues, then why are you, who are priviledged through different ways of luck, also priviledged to keep the rewards of this luck all to yourself?
Thirdly, note how luck includes where and when you are born. Social mobility therefore isn't an issue for his theory it just shifts the weight more heavily from what skills you are born with to where and when (and to who) you are born.
Lastly I have no idea what you intended with your post. I still don't.
|
Wow, I'm actually appalled by the first poll in this thread.
|
On November 16 2011 22:19 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 17:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 16 2011 13:45 HellRoxYa wrote:
I started my post by explaining that practically noone is arguing that hard work shouldn't pay off. Since the question then is not about if hard work should pay off but to what degree (fully, ie. keep everything, or different variations of partially keeping your 'reward', or maybe even being given 'extra', perhaps with the motivation that it'll make everyone work harder to themselves be so priviledged) Rawls suddenly becomes highly relevant.
I will agree, though, that it's not a complete argument. I would just, if I was Superiorwolf arguing with my friend, find my starting point in Rawls or a similar conception. In his book Rawls speaks about the lottery that is life. That some people are predispositioned to be more hard working, smart or social than others - in short things which often advance your career. He combines this with the lottery of what family, status and wealth you are born in to. This has profound effects for your chances in life and you have had no say in either of these lotteries. So... there's that. Depending on the source of wealth one might add general luck to the equation aswell. Starting your own company isn't just about working hard. Life is lotery, yet social mobility in the USA is almost zero. It's not lottery, it is just set in stone. There is no level of "hard woking" that can fight against the social inequalities. Rawls' theory of justice is just the easy way for some economist to justify the current situation. Or to only ask for marginal change (maximin). Rawls is useful in an essay, and that's it. First of all, this is maximin. Secondly, justifying the current situation by pointing to Rawls seems almost impossible to me and I doubt I will see anyone try. If life in general is lottery, which is what Rawls argues, then why are you, who are priviledged through different ways of luck, also priviledged to keep the rewards of this luck all to yourself? Thirdly, note how luck includes where and when you are born. Social mobility therefore isn't an issue for his theory it just shifts the weight more heavily from what skills you are born with to where and when (and to who) you are born. Lastly I have no idea what you intended with your post. I still don't.
Maximin is maximum minorum, I know it well. As I said, in most essay in economy, refering to Rawls' theory is good. But it just doesn't quite cut it when his solution are only marginal (you take the solution that deal the least damage to others out of all). In Rawls theory, the maximin is a strategy where people decide, between many lists of results, the action where the worst result is the best (max) than the worst of the other lists. It's a nice principle in theory.
But the way you present it, people work to get a certain position in the social space, and achieve it or not thanks to the quality of their work and a certain number of "chance factor" that is your social origin mostly and some others random factors. But that's not how the world is. In fact, the social origin is not a "lottery" that gives you a comparative advantage on others, it is more like the rule and the whole structure of the social mobility is based on the reproduction.
Starting your company is never about working hard or being smart.
|
Life is lotery, yet social mobility in the USA is almost zero.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
There is controversy as to whether 80% of millionaires in the US are really self-made or if the percentage is a little lower, but saying there is almost zero social mobility in the US is just plain inaccurate. The situation is the same for any class. I understand the zeal to push a preferred policy climate but stacking the deck on the definition of "wealth" and "class" (they count government benefits) still only results in the US being last among the best.
And since the CAC study is 5 years old, it would be interesting to see how social mobility is now faring in countries like Britain, Italy, France, Greece, etc., where a large part pf the income that artificially creates their superior "social mobility" came from government and is now gone.
Those countries achieved higher "social mobility" through measures that today are being rolled back thanks to the European crisis of not having enough money to pay it all.
I don't think a system that produced "better" results for two generations and is now collapsing under its own weight is better.
But the way you present it, people work to get a certain position in the social space, and achieve it or not thanks to the quality of their work and a certain number of "chance factor" that is your social origin mostly and some others random factors. But that's not how the world is. In fact, the social origin is not a "lottery" that gives you a comparative advantage on others, it is more like the rule and the whole structure of the social mobility is based on the reproduction.
How the world is is that you eventually run out of even other people's money. As your Continent is learning. Congratulations, you got what you really wanted for such a long time: you got to say your system worked better than America's. For a few decades. And all you had to do was destroy your system to prove it.
The next decade is going to be a bleak one for your system.
Starting your company is never about working hard or being smart.
You don't know what you're talking about. You can tell because any kind of statement like this is prima facie false.
Back to OWS.
Congratulations to all OWSers, it took you 2 whole months to become as unpopular as it took the Tea Party over a year. Actually the 42-45 spread is the best number I've seen for the Tea Party in months...
OWS at 33-45
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-favor-fading.html
(DISCLAIMER: PPP is a "left-leaning" polling organization that is the exclusive pollster of the Daily Kos. They will do a poll for anyone who pays them though of course, and they have a good reputation for accuracy.)
|
Congratulations to all OWSers, it took you 2 whole months to become as unpopular as it took the Tea Party over a year. Actually the 42-45 spread is the best number I've seen for the Tea Party in months...
OWS at 33-45
Yes. Because Tea Party "representatives" did not defecate on police cars. It's fairly obvious that the media surrounding OWS has been a giant smear campain. -.-
|
On November 17 2011 04:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.htmlThere is controversy as to whether 80% of millionaires in the US are really self-made or if the percentage is a little lower, but saying there is almost zero social mobility in the US is just plain inaccurate. The situation is the same for any class. I understand the zeal to push a preferred policy climate but stacking the deck on the definition of "wealth" and "class" (they count government benefits) still only results in the US being last among the best. And since the CAC study is 5 years old, it would be interesting to see how social mobility is now faring in countries like Britain, Italy, France, Greece, etc., where a large part pf the income that artificially creates their superior "social mobility" came from government and is now gone. Those countries achieved higher "social mobility" through measures that today are being rolled back thanks to the European crisis of not having enough money to pay it all. I don't think a system that produced "better" results for two generations and is now collapsing under its own weight is better. Show nested quote +But the way you present it, people work to get a certain position in the social space, and achieve it or not thanks to the quality of their work and a certain number of "chance factor" that is your social origin mostly and some others random factors. But that's not how the world is. In fact, the social origin is not a "lottery" that gives you a comparative advantage on others, it is more like the rule and the whole structure of the social mobility is based on the reproduction.
How the world is is that you eventually run out of even other people's money. As your Continent is learning. Congratulations, you got what you really wanted for such a long time: you got to say your system worked better than America's. For a few decades. And all you had to do was destroy your system to prove it. The next decade is going to be a bleak one for your system. You don't know what you're talking about. You can tell because any kind of statement like this is prima facie false. Back to OWS. Congratulations to all OWSers, it took you 2 whole months to become as unpopular as it took the Tea Party over a year. Actually the 42-45 spread is the best number I've seen for the Tea Party in months... OWS at 33-45 http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-favor-fading.html(DISCLAIMER: PPP is a "left-leaning" polling organization that is the exclusive pollster of the Daily Kos. They will do a poll for anyone who pays them though of course, and they have a good reputation for accuracy.)
Stop with the complex man, I'm not even making the comparaison between the US and Europe in term of overall system, they are the same. You should use your brain once in a while, when I talk about the world, I'm not trying to say my country is any better (in fact, in many ways, it's worst than the US because our education system is a big hypocrisy).
Also you linked something that I can't read because I have no account to log in. But I'm pretty sure you are missing the point : I'm not talking about "social mobility" as a whole but specifically intergeneration mobility. Sure, the US has one of the worst intergeneration mobility, but in fact it's a common denominator to all society. In some way reproduction is in fact a good thing : we cannot survive as a society if we don't reproduce a certain number of things (institutions, ethics, value, etc.). The fact is, in our societies, sons are like their fathers.
There is no controversy at all, almost all the millionaire comes from the higher social class.
|
You missed this part:
(C) 1996 Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko
A quick Google search of "intergenerational economic mobility United States" or "intergenerational economic mobility comparison" for more up-to-date studies turns up far more depressing results. The wikipedia article on economic mobility is also fairly good, but their article on intergenerational mobility lacks sources.
|
Look if people can't change shit by voting especially since like 30 states change their voting rules to make it harder for young people and minorities to vote so they can steal the election. Protest is the only way left. If Unions never protested we would still have kids 10 years old working in sweat shops and coal mines like in china, we would still have 7 day work weeks with a average wage of 2 dollars a person. If Women didn't protest women wouldn't be able to do shit especially not vote. If Blacks didn't protest then we would still have the Jim Crow south. When this nation sees things are unfair and they don't feel voting will be enough they protest. It ended the war in Vietnam as well as a whole host of other things. Conservatives have tried to flip it around and the "bad guys" are using Protest to try and control the issues but it will not work and the evil greedy, corporate, selfish, war hungry, self righteous when they don't even follow Jesus but claim him will fail. Good always wins in the end.
Capitalism is a great thing. its done wonders for the world. But like every thing else with power it MUST be kept in check and be at least in some part fair. The top 1 percent of the country own 80 I repeat 80 percent of the economy... at what point that does that number become unreasonable? 90 percent? 95 percent? how about 100 percent? At what point does wealth distribution to the top 1 percent become unreasonable? The people who have fought for equality in this country are historically the young, minorites and middle class. The rich don't like equality nor do they believe in it and neither do their worshipers, that is... until they loose their job or start getting paid 2 dollars an hour then you see how fast they change their tone.
|
|
|
Quite reasonable... the general rules seem to be
protest=fine
camping in non-camping area=not fine
|
On November 18 2011 00:31 Krikkitone wrote:Quite reasonable... the general rules seem to be protest=fine camping in non-camping area=not fine
I work across the street from where the OWS folks are caming out and it is kind of sad how the beautiful piece of the park is now a mud pit, Thankfully they are only on a small piece of the Greenway.The confusing part and the ONLY big issue I have had with the OWS camp is why they are allowed to break the rules?
And I'm not sure how breaking rules is part of free speech.
I'm 100% sure if the tea-party or NRA or an extreame example the KKK wanted to campout to voice their opinion they would have been run out in a day or two.
Straight from the park's website.
Source
PUBLIC USE AND ENJOYMENT II. DEFINITION OF GREENWAY PARK PROPERTY; OPEN HOURS AND PARK REGULATIONS; EMERGENCY CONTACT The Greenway park property is defined by statute (Chapter 306 of the Acts of 2008). The statute can be found on the Conservancy website www.rosekennedygreenway.org). Park Operating Hours: To maintain a safe secure environment at all times within the park, general operating hours for the park grounds will be from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM. Public access and movement through the parks will be permitted on a 24 hour /7 day a week basis. No overnight sleeping is allowed
|
And I'm not sure how breaking rules is part of free speech.
Actually there have been quite a few oddity ruling where things are allowed just in the format of protesting thus as being topless or nude (per state ruling) which is why you can get a permit on it.
On November 18 2011 00:48 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 00:31 Krikkitone wrote:On November 18 2011 00:22 Logo wrote:First, this past Sunday, a BPD officer told the driver of a visiting Wikileaks donation truck — on camera — that police searched the truck "because we were afraid that you might have contraband that we don't want in the camp — winter tents and insulation materials." Asked where that order came from, the officer stated, "My bosses."
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/130021-are-cities-trying-to-freeze-the-occupy-movement-to/?page=1#TOPCONTENTInteresting perspective for how Boston is fairing since the raid (well and before). Quite reasonable... the general rules seem to be protest=fine camping in non-camping area=not fine I work across the street from where the OWS folks are caming out and it is kind of sad how the beautiful piece of the park is now a mud pit, Thankfully they are only on a small piece of the Greenway.The confusing part and the ONLY big issue I have had with the OWS camp is why they are allowed to break the rules? And I'm not sure how breaking rules is part of free speech. I'm 100% sure if the tea-party or NRA or an extreame example the KKK wanted to campout to voice their opinion they would have been run out in a day or two. Straight from the park's website. SourceShow nested quote +PUBLIC USE AND ENJOYMENT II. DEFINITION OF GREENWAY PARK PROPERTY; OPEN HOURS AND PARK REGULATIONS; EMERGENCY CONTACT The Greenway park property is defined by statute (Chapter 306 of the Acts of 2008). The statute can be found on the Conservancy website www.rosekennedygreenway.org). Park Operating Hours: To maintain a safe secure environment at all times within the park, general operating hours for the park grounds will be from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM. Public access and movement through the parks will be permitted on a 24 hour /7 day a week basis. No overnight sleeping is allowed
Great argument all those black protesters during that whole civil rights thing have no valid points just a bunch of law breakers, sitting in white only cafes, vagrants and eye sores.
|
On November 17 2011 05:20 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +Congratulations to all OWSers, it took you 2 whole months to become as unpopular as it took the Tea Party over a year. Actually the 42-45 spread is the best number I've seen for the Tea Party in months...
OWS at 33-45
Yes. Because Tea Party "representatives" did not defecate on police cars. It's fairly obvious that the media surrounding OWS has been a giant smear campain. -.-
To be fair they got taken over by quality main party republicans that stuck to the parties wish's while running it effectivly and efficently. The OWS never had a chance beacuse they could never get that good leadership in to run the organizations.
speaking of organizations. right before they got kicked out most of the "action commities" where having all of their mettings in the lobby of the Deutsche bank. The Irony killed me when I saw that on the daily show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
